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:
BANK OF CHINA v. WELLS FARGO BANK & UNION TRUST CO.
Nos. 12698, 12699.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
July 30, 1951.
A. Crawford Greene, Morris M. Doyle and Owen Jameson, all of San Francisco, Cal., James B. Burke, New York City (McCutchen, Thomas, Matthews, Grif-fiths & Greene, San Francisco, Cal., Burke & Burke, New York City of counsel), for appellant Bank of China.
Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel, Martin Minney, Jr., Edward W. Rosston and Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.
Robert W. Kenny, Los Angeles, Cal., Martin Popper and Wolf, Popper, Ross & Wolf, all of New York City, Benjamin Dreyfus, Francis J. McTernan, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for movant appellee Bank of China.
Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In these cases the District Court found that a satisfactory solution could not be reached on the evidence before it. That court, therefore, continued the causes sine die and entered the following order:
“1. That the trial of this cause will be continued sine die;
“2. That the said motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice;
“3. That said motion for dismissal or in the alternative for substitution of attorneys is denied without prejudice;
“4. That the defendant is hereby permitted to deposit in the Registry of this Court the said sum of $626,860.07, subject to the further order of this Court pending a decision herein on the merits;
“5. That the defendant Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. shall be and it is hereby relieved of any and all claims for interest for use of the fund or because of its failure or refusal to pay said fund to plaintiff Bank of China or any other claimant thereto which may now or hereafter ■be asserted against it by plaintiff or any other claimant to said fund or any part thereof, upon condition that it deposit the sum of $626,860.07 in the Registry of this Court within ten (10) days from the date hereof;
“6. That upon the defendant’s depositing said sum as provided in paragraph 5 hereof, it shall be and is hereby discharged of and from all liability in the premises either to plaintiff Bank of China or to anyone claiming through or on behalf of plaintiff, and plaintiff and all those persons now before this Court who are assertedly acting in the name of plaintiff are restrained from enforcing or attempting to enforce any claim or claims against said defendant relating to said sum of money or said deposit or from taking any proceedings against defendant in relation thereto;
“7. That there is reserved to defendant the right to assert against said fund and to prove its costs and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in this action; * *
See 92 F.Supp. 920. This appeal is taken from that order.
In 'briefs and oral argument, the parties have made it clear that there is now available additional evidence of substantial significance. The District Court may deem it expedient to re-examine the case in the light of changing world conditions and such additional evidence as may be made available to it by the respective parties.
This court has the power to make such disposition of the case as justice may require. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106; see Bryan v. United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 552, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335; Schaff v. R. W. Claxton, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 144 F.2d 532. We think the appropriate procedure to attain that end is to dismiss the appeals without prejudice and remand the causes to the district court. Cf. Greene v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 1 Cir. 1903, 124 F. 961.
It is so ordered.

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