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:
OLD FORT IMPROVEMENT CO. v. LEA et al.
No. 4232.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 1, 1937.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for an allowance of an appeal under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 47(b), from an order dismissing a petition for corporate reorganization under section 77B, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 207). The case was before us at January term, 1937, on the sole point ás to whether a petition for reorganization could be filed for the corporation after its charter had been revoked. 89 F.(2d) 286. We reversed the order on that point, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The District Court then reconsidered the order of dismissal and sustained it on two other grounds adverted to in the original order, but not sufficiently presented for review in the record as brought up on the former appeal. These grounds were that the corporation was not insolvent and that the plan presented by the petition was disapproved as speculative and not in the interest of stockholders and creditors. The court, in entering the last order of dismissal, said:
“No records of the corporation have been produced to sustain the right of R. C. Horne, Jr., to act as director or officer of the corporation in the filing of the petition, or any evidence of his asserted claim as a stockholder. The corporation is not insolvent. The proposed plan of reorganization for the formation of a new corporation, which the decision of the Fourth Circuit holds may “be resorted to by a defunct corporation in a proper case, has been held by this court’s order to be entirely speculative and of no real benefit to the corporation or its stockholders, and perhaps prejudicial to stockholders and creditors. After full hearing, I find no reason to revise the conclusions reached in said order of dismissal, assuming that the reversal and remand for further proceedings intended that the court should reconsider the petition on these grounds.
• “It is therefore ordered that the petition stands dismissed under the order of August 1, 1936, on the grounds therein set out from which there was no appeal.”
The assignments of error filed with the petition for appeal make no complaint of the finding 'as to solvency or as to the disapproval of the petition, but complain that the last order of the District Court does hot comply with our mandate, and that there was error in dismissing the petition after the jurisdiction of the court of bankruptcy had attached. We think, however, that the order must be interpreted as a reconsideration of the order of dismissal in the light of our mandate, and that the application for appeal is without merit on the grounds set forth in the assignments of error.
Petition 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