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:
George HOLLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex HOLLANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 372, Docket 28017.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued June 4, 1963.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Copal Mintz, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Morris Pottish, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, CLARK, Circuit Judge, and BARTELS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In an action before Judge Dimock, defendant-appellant was found to have engaged in stock transactions for the joint account of himself and his brother, plaintiff-appellee. Judge Dimock ordered an accounting. When it was submitted, plaintiff thought it inadequate and sought to have defendant held in contempt. Judge Dawson agreed that the accounting was inadequate, but felt that defendant should be given a second chance to comply. When the second accounting was presented, plaintiff again moved to have defendant adjudged in contempt. Judge Bonsai found that defendant still had not complied with Judge Dimock’s order and appointed Frank H. Gordon, Special Master, to conduct a hearing so as to obtain the accounting which defendant persisted in failing to make. The result of these proceedings was a recommendation that defendant be held in contempt. Judge Bonsai accepted the Special Master’s recommendations, directed the defendant to pay $1,379 to plaintiff’s attorney as reasonable compensation and disbursements, together with $3,000 to the Master as fee, and further directed a proper accounting on penalty of a $3,000 fine. Defendant now appeals from this judgment.
Plaintiff asks us to reopen the denial of his motion to dismiss the appeal, made by another panel of this court. This, however, we are unwilling to do. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-547, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528. The defendant must pay over large sums of money to plaintiff’s attorney and the Special Master, and this order he cannot effectively appeal after the final judgment on the accounting. The issue on the merits is whether the defendant made a bona fide effort to comply with the district court’s mandates. In such a situation, demean- or has crucial importance. Beyond that, defendant’s conduct seems dubious and irresponsible. Thus there is no basis for setting aside the determinations- of two district judges and the Special Master.
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: 0