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:
MOGIS v. LYMAN-RICHEY SAND & GRAVEL CORP.
No. 14182.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
June 28, 1951.
Swenson, Viren & Turner, Omaha, Neb., for the appellant Einar Viren, Omaha, Neb., argued.
Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda, Omaha, Neb., for the appellee Leo Eisenstatt and Yale C. Holland, Omaha, Neb., argued.
Before COLLET and STONE, Circuit Judges, and DELEHANT, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
On May 18, 1951, this Court, 189 F.2d 130, affirmed the judgment of the District Court, 90 F.Supp. 251. June 2, 1951, appellant filed a petition for rehearing. Included in the grounds urged in this petition are that “this court erred in oyerruling appellant’s motion to stay the proceedings until a construction of the Nebraska filing statute could be obtained in the courts of the State of Nebraska, and the appellant further urges that the court erred in affirming the action of the district court in dismissing the appellant’s complaint rather than remanding the cause with directions to hold pending decision of the state question in the state court.”
Several months before argument and submission of this appeal, appellant filed a motion requesting further time to file his briefs and moving “that the Court not hear and determine this appeal, until a reasonable time has passed, during which a conclusive interpretation by the Nebraska State Courts can be sought on the question of Nebraska law presented to this Court in this appeal.” As an exhibit and part of this motion was attaohed a petition in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, filed by Albert Tady against the Nebraska State Railway Commission, its officers and members for a declaratory judgment determining the legal duties of the Commission “in respect to the filing of motor carrier rates fixed by the Nebraska State Railway Commission with the Secretary of State of Nebraska and the applicability of Chapter 84 — 901 to Chapter 84-906, to rates fixed and established by the Railway Commission; and that the Court declare the legal effect and validity of the motor carrier rates issued and prescribed by the Nebraska State Railway Commission and purporting to be presently effective but not filed with the Secretary of State of Nebraska; and that in the event the Court should find that Official Motor Vehicle Tariff No. 3, together with its amendments, should be filed by the Railway Commission with the Secretary of State, then in that event,” an order is prayed requiring such filing.
In so far as this motion sought “to stay these proceedings pending the determination of another action by the Supreme Court of Nebraska”, appellee moved this Court to “dismiss and overrule appellant’s motion”. This Court denied stay sought by appellant; granted further time for briefs and reassigned the setting of this appeal to the later March 1951 term. The case was then presented and submitted.
We think we have no power to grant the stay thus sought. This case is purely one at law seeking a personal judgment for money. Only in “exceptional cases,” Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 234, 64 S.Ct. 7, 11, 88 L.Ed. 9, is it not the duty of federal courts “to decide questions of state law whenever necessary to the rendition of a judgment” (same citation). “The exceptions relate to the discretionary powers of courts of equity,” 320 U.S. at page 235, 64 S.Ct. at page 11. Had we power to suspend or stay decision here (in some proper form and upon suitable terms) we would be inclined so to do.
Because of lack of power as to this ground for rehearing and for lack of merit in the other grounds presented in the petition, the petition for rehearing is
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: 1