What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Herbert G. Wolf and Far East International Corp., Defendants, Philipp Bauer Co., Inc., and Kenneth B. Bauer, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 152, Docket 30512.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 6, 1966.
Decided Oct. 28, 1966.
See also D.C., 36 F.R.D. 18.
Richard A. Givens, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York, and Paul R. Grand, Michael W. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Attys., on the brief), for appellee.
Edward S. Friedland, New York City, for appellants, Philipp Bauer Co., Inc., and Kenneth B. Bauer.
Before SMITH, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants were convicted by verdict of a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 which provides:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully * * * conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The evidence shows that in connection with the distribution by appellants of pharmaceutical products in Vietnam and Cambodia, appellants received and made certain payments which they failed to disclose in answer to questions concerning such payments on forms provided by the Agency for International Development and filed by appellants in order to obtain payment for the products from foreign aid funds. Appellants contend that they were not required to disclose payments of the type which they admittedly received and made and that, therefore, their failure to do so does not constitute a violation of Section 1001.
The AID forms called for “information as to agents’ commissions, domestic and foreign * * * paid or to be paid,” to which appellants replied “None,” and contained the following statement which was signed by appellants without entering anything on the reverse of the form:
“The supplier has not given or received and will not give or receive by way of side payment, ‘kickbacks,’ or otherwise, any benefit in connection with said contract except as is disclosed on the reverse of this form.”
Appellants paid 10% of invoice prices to importers of the pharmaceutical products for what they called “promotion allowances.” Besides these regular payments appellants also paid from time to time various personal expenses of the importers including, for example, airplane tickets, hospital expenses, and transportation of an automobile.
Appellants also made regular payments of 2% of invoice price to one of the officials of its supplier.
Moreover, appellants received a 20% commission for acting as agent for their supplier.
It is obvious that appellants gave and received “benefits” some of which are also properly to be classified as “commissions,” “side payments” and “kickbacks.” Their failure to disclose these payments on the AID form clearly constituted a violation of Section 1001.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 2