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:
SHELDON et al. v. GRIFFIN.
No. 12097.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
April 29, 1949.
J. Gerald Williams, Atty. Gen., Territory of Alaska, Faulkner & Banfield, of Juneau, Alaska, and Medley & Haugland and W. C. Arnold, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellants.
No other appearances were entered.
Before MATHEWS, HEALY, and POPE, Circuit Judges.
HEALY, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a decree enjoining the Alaska Unemployment Compensation Commission from giving effect to an amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Code of the Territory adopted by the legislature at its 1947 session.
The amendment provided for a system of credits to be granted qualified employers of labor on an experience merit basis and also reduced the waiting period from two weeks to one week before benefits may be Plaintiff (appellee) challenged the validity of the amendment for asserted irregularities in the course of the bill’s passage. His complaint alleged that the title of the bill was inadequate, that a motion to reconsider in the House was not properly disposed of, that the bill did not receive in the House three separate readings as required by Sec. 13 of the Alaska Organic Act, 48 U.S.C.A. § 85, and finally that the bill was vetoed by the governor. The court made findings adverse to all these allegations save one, namely, that the bill did not have a third reading in the Flouse. On a finding to the latter effect, based on an examination of the House Journal, the court concluded that the amendment did not become law and it granted the injunctive relief prayed for. claimed by an unemployed person.
The record discloses that the bill was regularly certified by the presiding officers of both Senate and Flouse and became an enrolled bill; also that the governor intended it to become law without his signature and that with this intent he formally transmitted it to the office of the secretary of Alaska for permanent filing, it being thereafter officially published as Chapter 74 of the 1947 Laws. The Commission urges that the court was in error in failing to take judicial notice of Chapter 74 under the generally accepted doctrine of Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294. We do not reach that point as we are of opinion that the suit should have been dismissed as presenting no justiciable controversy.
In his complaint the plaintiff alleged merely that he is a citizen and taxpayer of Alaska. While he offered no proof on the subject we may assume that he occupies that status. The amendment under attack adds nothing to the burden of the taxpayers of Alaska. The unemployment compensation fund administered by the Commission is made up of contributions exacted from employers in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission,, plus fines -and penalties collected pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Alaska Compiled Laws 1949, § 51-5-5. There is nothing in the pleading or proof to indicate that the plaintiff has. a particular right of his own to which injury is threatened, or any interest distinguishable from that of the general public in the administration of the law. To entitle himself to be heard he is obliged to demonstrate not only that the statute he attacks is void but that he suffers or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some remote or indefinite way in common with the generality of people. Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078. Cf. also Perkins v. Luckens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 125, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108; State of Minn, ex rel. Smith v. Haveland County Assessor, 223 Minn. 89, 25 N.W.2d 474, 174 A.L.R. 544.
. The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss the suit.
A number of employers were permitted to intervene in the suit and these intervenors have joined with the Commission on the 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