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:
PUBLIC UTILITY INVESTING CORPORATION et al. v. UTILITIES POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION.
No. 4001.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 22, 1936.
Garrett A. Brownback, of New York City (John S. Eggleston and McGuire, Riley & Eggleston, all of Richmond, Va., and Moses & Singer, Alfred W. Bressler, and Travis, Brownback & Paxson, all of New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Thomas B. Gay, of Richmond, Ya. (Hunton, Williams, Anderson, Gay & Moore, of Richmond, Va., and Dwight H. Green, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit by stockholders in a utility holding corporation to enjoin its officers and directors from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission as required by the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C.A. § 79 et seq.). The court below denied an interlocutory injunction and refused to grant a temporary restraining order pending appeal except for a sufficient length of time to enable plaintiffs to apply to this court for such restraining order. Plaintiffs appealed from this order and have applied to us for a temporary restraining order pending the hearing of the appeal. We restrained defendant from registering pending the hearing of this application.
Assuming without deciding that compliance with Equity Rule 27 (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723) is required in cases of this character and that the allegations of paragraph 20 of the bill are a sufficient compliance with the rule, we are nevertheless of the opinion that the restraining order pending appeal should be denied. Plaintiffs are clearly not entitled to injunction in the absence of a reasonable ground to apprehend irreparable injury; and we see no reason to apprehend irreparable injury in the light of the. permission given to register with reservation of constitutional rights. Ryan v. Williams (C.C.) 100 F. 177.
The case is entirely different from the case, of Burco, Inc., v. Whitworth et al. (C.C.A.) 81 F.(2d) 721, this day decided. There the decision whether to register or not had to be made by the District Court, and that court in making the decision necessarily had to pass on the constitutionality of the holding company act. Here the decision was made by the officers and directors of the company, and they may very well have decided that even though the act was unconstitutional, it would be beneficial to the defendant to register under it with reservation of its constitutional rights. There the expenditure of moneys for the purpose of effecting a reorganization was involved. Here the corporation is not in reorganization and it does not appear how it can be injured in any. way by registering with reservation of constitutional rights; for, with such reservation, registration amounts to nothing in so far as the act is unconstitutional.
The application for restraining order pending appeal will be denied.
Restraining order 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: 2