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:
Varena ELSTON, wife of/and Joseph Yuratich, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY and the Travelers Insurance Company, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ZENITH, INC. and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Third Party Defendants-Appellees, U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 73-1616
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 20, 1973.
John J. Weigel, New Orleans, La., for appellants.
Peter J. Butler, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Chester Francipane, Metairie, La., for third party defendants-appellees.
Wood Brown, III, New Orleans, La., for intervenor-appellee.
Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N. Y., 431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970).
PER CURIAM:
Shell Oil Company and its liability carrier appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the appellees. We affirm.
Mrs. Yuratieh suffered painful and nearly fatal injuries as a result of a collision involving a truck owned by the Shell Oil Company. The truck was being driven by an employee of Zenith, Inc., a labor contractor which supplied the driver on an hourly basis to make deliveries to Shell installations. The evidence of Shell’s control over the driver’s activities was amply sufficient for the jury to find that the driver was Shell’s borrowed servant for purposes of tort liability. See, e. g., Richardson v. Tate, 269 So.2d 278 (La.App.1972), writ denied, 271 So. 2d 260 (La.1973).
Shell asserts as error the refusal to instruct the jury that personal injury awards are not subject to federal income tax. The refusal follows prior decisions of this court. Cunningham v. Bay Drilling Co., 421 F.2d 1398 (5th Cir. 1970); Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Wilkerson, 327 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1964). We have recently refused to overrule our former decisions. Greco v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 464 F.2d 496 (5th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 468 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 990, 93 S.Ct. 1502, 36 L.Ed.2d 190 (1973). We therefore regard the issue foreclosed from reconsideration by this panel.
Shell contends that a mistrial should have been declared because of an allegedly prejudicial comment by the court. As an alternative to its request for a mistrial Shell requested, and the court gave, an instruction to the jury to disregard the remark. The granting of Shell’s alternate request for relief was sufficient to cure any error.
In light of the extent of Mrs. Yuratich’s injuries, we cannot say that the verdict was in excess of the maximum amount the jury could have reasonably found. See Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 429 F.2d 1033, 1042-1047 (5th Cir. 1970), aff’d after remand, 456 F.2d 180 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 407 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 2463, 32 L.Ed.2d 807 (1972).
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