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:
Irving COHEN, d/b/a Pralcoa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALWALL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 340, Docket 25026.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 1, 1958.
Decided May 12, 1958.
Samuel Feldman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Asher Lans, of Finley & Lans, New York City (Stanley N. Queler, of Finley & Lans, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and HINCKS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff instituted an action in the Supreme Court of New York, apparently for commissions on a sale of defendant’s product, by service of a summons upon defendant’s treasurer temporarily in New York City. As permitted by state practice, the complaint was not attached. Defendant removed the case to the court below and then secured an order of dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
It may be, as plaintiff suggests, that jurisdiction over non-residents is being extended, see Wham, An Expanding Concept: Jurisdiction over Non-Residents, 44 A.B.A.J. 422 (1958); but we know of no case going as far as plaintiff asks under the law of New York which controls in this removed action. Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, Inc., 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 33. Thus for a corporation to be found "present” in New York, there must be local corporate activities which the court regards “as more than casual or occasional, and so systematic and regular as to manifest ‘Continuity of action from a permanent locale’ ”; and while solicitation of business is to be considered, there must be “solicitation * * * plus some additional activities.” (Italics in original.) Elish v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 305 N.Y. 267, 269, 112 N.E.2d 842, 843; and see Rondinelli v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 5 A.D.2d 842, 170 N.Y.S.2d 947. The courts there were dealing thus gingerly with foreign railroads which maintained local offices for the regular and continuous solicitation of business. None of those features are here present.
Defendant is a New Hampshire corporation, manufacturing and distributing fiber glass panels, with a single office and place of business in Manchester, New Hampshire. While plaintiff claims an agency relation as “distributor” for it, he, like retailers in general, buys the product and resells it, the defendant suggesting, but not enforcing, a resale price. Defendant’s officers asserted under oath that they have never solicited or entered into a contract of sale in New York, and that their standard form of sale always requires final approval in Manchester, whence the goods are shipped F. O. B. While plaintiff attempts to assert that a few contracts were made in New York, it is apparent from these terms that this is a mistake of law. Additionally defendant’s general manager made several trips to New York to talk to architects; but since no sales were solicited or made at the time, there is no reason to question the manager’s sworn statement that his purpose was educational, rather than the direct and immediate solicitation of business. Plaintiff of course has complete remedies available in the New Hampshire courts, state or federal.
Affirmed.

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