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:
MILLER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11958.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 25, 1942.
For original judgment of affirmance of conviction, see 123 F.2d 715.
See, also, 124 F.2d 849.
No attorney appeared for the appellant.
Clinton R. Barry, U. S. Atty. and Thomas C. Pitts, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Fort Smith, Ark., for the United States.
Before SANBORN and JOHNSEN, , Circuit Judges, and NORDBYE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This Court on November 25, 1941, affirmed the conviction of the appellant. 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 715. Thereafter the appellant, who is without funds and has entered upon the execution of his sentence, filed applications praying (1) for the appointment of counsel to conduct further proceedings on his behalf, and (2) for an order directing that, at the Government’s expense, a full and complete transcript of all of the testimony taken at the trial be sent to this Court to enable it to review and reconsider this case. The appellant had presented only one question for decision, and his record on appeal was insufficient to enable this Court to determine other questions if they had been presented. Since in Holmes v. United States, 62 S.Ct. 357, 86 L.Ed. _, the Government had consented to the vacation of a judgment of affirmance entered by this Court (see 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 528) in a case where the record on appeal contained no bill of exceptions and was insufficient to enable this Court to determine the questions presented for decision, we considered it advisable, in the instant case, to ascertain whether the Government desired to consent that the case might be reopened to enable the appellant, Miller, to have a complete review. We therefore made an order requesting that the Government make response to the applications of the appellant, and affording the appellant an opportunity to reply to the response of the Government. See, 8 Cir., 124 F.2d 849. The Government has made its response, in which it seeks to distinguish the situation in the Holmes case from the situation in this case, and states that it could not lawfully pay or be compelled to pay for a bill of exceptions in this case, and that the appellant had the opportunity to procure a complete record on appeal had he desired to do so. The Government indicates that it does not propose to consent to the vacation of the judgment of this Court or to a reopening of this case.
Whether there is a distinction between the Holmes case and the present case, we do not regard as important. What we were concerned about was whether the Government proposed to consent to a vacation of the judgment of this Court in this case and to a reconsideration and rehearing. This Court has decided the only question which was presented and which, upon the record, it had jurisdiction to decide, and we are convinced that it decided that question correctly. The only judgment which could have been entered was entered, and the case is ended so far as this Court is concerned. If further proceedings are to be conducted by the appellant, they must necessarily be conducted in the Supreme Court of the United States. We are therefore, of the opinion that the appellant, if he intends to proceed further, should apply to that Court for such relief and assistance as he may consider himself entitled to. He is granted leave to withdraw any of the original documents presented by him to this Court in connection with his applications for the appointment of counsel and for a complete transcript of the evidence. If any further proceedings taken by the appellant in the Supreme Court result in any liability for Clerk's fees or costs in this Court, he, as a poor person, is relieved of the obligation to pay such fees or costs.
The applications of the appellant are denied.

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: 0