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:
Josephine D. LOVATO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Friedericka De Los Santos, Appellees.
No. 6702.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 21, 1961.
Melvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, N. M. (Lorenzo A. Chavez and Arturo G. Ortega, Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for appellant.
Jack L. Love, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for appellee United States of America.
Joseph J. Mullins, of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellee Friedericka De Los Santos.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
PICKETT, Circuit Judge.
The United States issued to Eleuterio De Los Santos a $10,000 National Service Life Insurance policy while he was a member of the armed forces of the United States. On the date of his death in July, 1957, the insured’s sister, Josephine D. Lovato, the plaintiff herein, was named as sole beneficiary of the policy in the designation filed with the Veterans Administration. After the designation of his sister as beneficiary, De Los Santos was married, and two children were bom as a result of this union. The Veterans Administration determined that the insured had effectuated a change of beneficiary of his insurance policy from his sister to his wife, Friedericka De Los Santos. The sister brought this action to recover the proceeds of the policy, and the widow was interpleaded. The trial court agreed with the Veterans Administration, and a judgment was entered awarding the proceeds of the policy to the widow. The sole question presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the court’s finding that the insured had effectively changed the beneficiary of the policy.
This court has had numerous cases of this nature in which it has held that literal compliance with the technical requirements established by regulation for accomplishing a change of beneficiary is not essential, but it must be established that the insured not only intended to change the beneficiary, but performed some affirmative act to carry out that intention. Blair v. United States, 10 Cir., 260 F.2d 237; Littlefield v. Littlefield, 10 Cir., 194 F.2d 695; Boring v. United States, 10 Cir., 181 F.2d 931; Widney v. United States, 10 Cir., 178 F.2d 880; Collins v. United States, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 64, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 859, 67 S.Ct. 1756, 91 L.Ed. 1866; Bradley v. United States, 10 Cir., 143 F. 2d 573, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 429, 89 L.Ed. 632.
The findings of the trial court are not to be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 28 U.S. C.A.; Boring v. United States, supra; Widney v. United States, supra. A number of witnesses, including the insured’s wife, testified that the insured intended to change the beneficiary, and the evidence fully supports the court’s finding as to the insured’s intention. Intention, standing alone, however, is not sufficient to effectuate a change. The question remains as to whether the insured took the affirmative action to carry out his intention which is necessary to effectuate the change.
On June 17, 1956 the insured executed a Record of Emergency Data form, designated as “Form No. DD 93”. It is used to provide information as to the person to be notified in case of an emergency and also to designate the beneficiary of certain service connected benefits, including the beneficiary for the servicemen’s indemnity (Act of Apr. 25, 1951, ch. 39, 65 Stat. 33). This form included, in fine print, a statement that this designation did “not affect insurance (NSLI or USGLI) beneficiary designation.” The wife was designated as the beneficiary of the servicemen’s indemnity, and in the space providing for the share to be received, the figure “$10,-000” was inserted. The insured had no servicemen’s indemnity under the terms of the statute because he had in effect National Service Life Insurance in the amount of $10,000, and this figure could have reference only to his National Service Life Insurance. Bew v. United States, 4 Cir., 286 F.2d 570. There is an indication from the Veterans Administration files that Form Number DD 93, and its predecessor, AGO Form Number 41, were believed by some servicemen to be the proper form for changing the beneficiary in their National Service Life Insurance, and were used by them for that purpose. See Widney v. United States, supra.
In holding that the execution of an AGO Form 41 by the insured may constitute the positive or affirmative act necessary to accomplish a change of beneficiary, we said in Boring v. United States, supra [10 Cir., 181 F.2d 933]:
“Without exception, the courts have held that strict compliance with the regulations to effect a change in beneficiary by the soldier was not required, and that technicalities would be brushed aside in an effort to carry out the declared intent of the insured in this class of cases. See Bradley v. United States, supra [10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573],
“A number of cases have been before the courts in which Form AGO 41 was used to effectuate a change in beneficiary, and in all of them the courts have held that the execution of this form for this purpose was sufficient for a valid change of beneficiary, if executed with that purpose in mind.” (Footnote omitted. )
In Foster v. Winingham, 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 46, 47, it was said:
“Unless a controlling statutory provision or an effective regulation promulgated under statutory authority exacts otherwise, the intention and purpose of the insured should be given effect in a case of this kind involving the question whether his wife or this daughter is the beneficiary under a policy of National Service Life Insurance if it reasonably can be done. Narrow technicalities not contravening an applicable statutory provision or an effective regulation should be brushed aside in order to effectuate such intent and purpose. And substance rather than form should be the basis of decision. Bradley v. United States, 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573, certiorari denied, Bradley v. Bradley, 323 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 429, 89 L.Ed. 632; Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 758; McKewen v. McKewen, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 761, certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 860, 68 S.Ct. 1530, [92 L.Ed. 1780].”
On this record we cannot say as a matter of law that the execution of Form Number DD 93 was not a sufficient affirmative act on the part of the insured to effectuate a change of beneficiary in insurance from his sister to his wife. The appellant relies on Blair v. United States, supra, as controlling in this case. It is, however, distinguishable on its facts. The affirmative act relied on in that case was a designation of beneficiary included in an Oath and Certificate of Enlistment executed upon re-enlistment when the National Service Life Insurance had not been in effect for over two years. Blair later made application for reinstatement of the policy but made no change in the beneficiary named in the policy. Further, the form in the Blair case was intended for purposes wholly unrelated to insurance. The form in this case was the proper form to be used in designating the beneficiary of a statutory substitute for National Service Life Insurance.
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: 1