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:
Frank A. WISE and WDW, Inc., Appellants, v. George DeWERD, Cote de la Mer Corporation and Palm Beach, Inc.
No. 16105.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 30, 1967.
Decided Feb. 15, 1967.
George H. T. Dudley, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V. I., for appellants.
Thomas D. Ireland, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V. I., for appellees.
Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and MARIS and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
This is the second appeal by the plaintiffs in this case. The facts are sufficiently stated in our opinion disposing of the first appeal, 3 Cir., 358 F.2d 389, 5 V.I. 493, and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that we vacated the judgment which the district court had entered and ordered the entry of a new judgment conforming to the directions contained in our opinion. The district court entered a revised judgment , which the plaintiffs on the present appeal contend does not follow our mandate. There is no merit in this contention. On the contrary, we are satisfied that the revised judgment entered by the district court loyally follows our mandate in form and substance so far as the merits of the case are concerned.
The plaintiffs urge that the revised judgment is erroneous because it does not direct the payment by the defendants to the plaintiffs of two-thirds of the total outstanding obligations, amounting to $27,401.47, incurred by-plaintiff WDW, Inc., in its joint venture with Cote de la Mer Corporation. This same contention was made by the plaintiffs at the trial, as well as in this court on the first appeal, and was rejected. Por these obligations, so far as appears, have not actually been paid by WDW, Inc., which is, therefore, not yet entitled to enforce its right to reimbursement by defendant Cote de la Mer Corporation of two-thirds of the amounts paid in settlement of them.
This brings us to a matter not considered on the first appeal. The district court in its original judgment allowed the defendants counsel fees of $5,-000.00 and costs. Exactly the same allowance was made in the revised judgment entered on our mandate. The plaintiffs urge on the present appeal that they are the prevailing parties and that the award of counsel fees to the defendants is, therefore, erroneous. We think this contention is well taken.
By their amended complaint the plaintiffs claimed $61,849.60, and the defendants by counterclaim claimed $192,-000.00. By the first judgment entered by the district court on June 29, 1965 defendant DeWerd was awarded $40,000.00 against plaintiff Wise and $68,553.00 against plaintiff WDW, Inc., while plaintiff WDW, Inc., was awarded $10,652.97 against defendant Cote de la Mer Corporation. By the revised judgment entered on our mandate defendant DeWerd was awarded only $7,148.67 against plaintiff WDW, Inc., and nothing against plaintiff Wise, while plaintiff Wise was awarded $5,000.00 against defendant De-Werd in addition to the unchanged award of $10,652.97 in favor of plaintiff WDW, Inc., against defendant Cote de la Mer Corporation. It will thus be seen that whereas in the pleadings the defendants claimed $130,000.00 more than the plaintiffs and under the original judgment the defendants’ net recovery from the plaintiffs was $97,900.03, under the revised judgment entered upon our mandate, the plaintiffs secured a net recovery of $8,-504.30. It is thus perfectly clear that the plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this litigation within the meaning of section 541, title 5, V.I.C., and should have been so considered by the district court in determining the award of counsel fees in the revised judgment. Whether under all the circumstances they should be awarded counsel fees or whether the parties should bear their own costs is, of course, a matter for the district court to determine.
The judgment appealed from will be affirmed except as to the award of counsel fees and costs. The award of counsel fees and costs will be vacated and the cause will be remanded for such award of counsel fees and costs, if any, to the plaintiffs as the district court may determine to be appropriate in the circumstances.

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: 99