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:
Benjamin W. COREY, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6046.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 24, 1962.
Decided Sept. 18, 1962.
Russell Morton Brown, Washington, D. C., for appellant on memorandum.
W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Thomas P. O’Connor, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee on motion to dismiss and memorandum.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is a motion by the United States to dismiss, as untimely, defendant-appellant’s appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Defendant was convicted as charged in the indictment of seventy-five offenses of making and presenting for payment to a department of the United States— the Department of the Army — false, fictitious and fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. The maximum penalty for each offense is five years imprisonment or a fine of $10,000 or both.
On April 9, 1962, the district court entered a judgment of conviction against the defendant expressly noting that the judgment was entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b). This statute empowers a court for a maximum period of six months to modify a defendant’s sentence without being restricted to sixty days, as provided by Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Following the April 9 judgment, defendant was placed in the custody of the Attorney General and committed by him to the United States Penitentiary at Lewis-burg, Pennsylvania.
Thereafter, on July 17, 1962, again pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b), the district court entered an Order On Probation, suspending sentence and placing the defendant on probation for a term of two years.
Defendant took no appeal from the April 9 judgment but has appealed the Order On Probation entered July 17, 1962. The United States Attorney’s position is that the judgment of April 9, 1962, under § 4208(b), was a final appeal-able judgment and that defendant’s right of appeal has been lost by failure to give notice of appeal within ten days thereof.
The defendant contends that under the April'9 judgment “No sentence whatever was pronounced. No punishment was imposed, * * However, the district court expressly noted that it was acting under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b). Under this section the statute clearly states that the term of “commitment shall be deemed to be for the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed by law.” Consequently, at this point the defendant was on notice as to the extent of his punishment. If he desired to appeal, this was the time that he should have acted. While it is true that defendant could reasonably assume that the judge would modify this maximum sentence, the judge was assuredly under no duty to do so. See United States v. Behrens, 190 F.Supp. 799 (D.C.S.D., Ind.1961).
An order will be entered docketing the case and granting the motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal.

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