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:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-2834.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 27, 1973.
Kalvin M. Grove, S. Richard Pincus, Chicago, Ill., Melbourne D. McLendon, Atlanta, Ga., Robert A. Penney, Boston, Mass., for defendant-appellant.
John deJ. Pemberton, Jr., Acting Gen. Counsel, E. E. O. C., Washington, D. C., Joseph Ray Terry, Jr., Regional Atty., E. E. O. C., Atlanta, Ga., Julia P. Cooper, Beth Don, E. E. O. C., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM, GEWIN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 P.L. 92-261,. 86 Stat. 103 (March 24, 1972), seeking reinstatement and back pay for the allegedly aggrieved party, Sandra Drew, pending final disposition of her charge before the Commission. The Appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), complains of an order issued by the District Court, 346 F.Supp. 675, requiring it to reinstate Mrs. Drew to her former position and directing that she be given back pay with interest from the date of her discharge.
We are unable to agree with the contention of Liberty that the record fails to support the action taken by the District Court. Our review of the record fails to convince us that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing the order. However, we take note of the fact that the order of the District Court has provided Mrs. Drew with full pay for a period of almost one full year. In addition, she was allowed interest on the back pay awarded to her during the period of her discharge before reinstatement.
Pursuant to inquiry by this Court on oral argument, counsel for both parties informed the Court that nothing substantial has been accomplished by the Commission with respect to Mrs. Drew’s complaint since the District Court entered its order. This ease should receive immediate attention and the controversy should be brought to a proper conclusion. We do not approve the delay by the Commission which is evident in this case, especially in circumstances in which the relationship between employer and employee is seriously affected by the terms of an injunctive order.
We remand the case to the District Court with Directions to institute appropriate procedures to require the Commission to proceed with the investigation and possible disposition of the complaint involved in accordance with the duties imposed upon it by the applicable statutes and that this litigation be brought to a conclusion without further undue delay.
Affirmed and remanded.

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