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:
McKesson & Robbins, Inc., v. Charles H. PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CO.
No. 292.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 7, 1931.
For former opinion, see 53 F.(2d) 342.
Taylor, Durey, Pierson & Comley, of Stamford, Conn. (H. H. Ramsey and Edward S. Rogers, both of New York City, Allen M. Reed, of Chicago, Ill., and Norris E. Pierson, of Stamford, Conn., of counsel), for appellant.
Marsh, Stoddard & Day, of Bridgeport, Conn. (Harry D. Nims and Wallace H. Martin, both of New York City, and Vincent L. Keating, of Bridgeport, Conn., of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUST ÜS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.
We have held the registered trade-mark “Milk of Magnesia” invalid because it was not in the actual and exclusive use of the defendant, or its predecessors, during ten years next preceding February 20, 1905, as required by section 5 of the Federal TradeMark Act (15 USCA § 85), and also because the defendant had abandoned the mark. But we said that this invalidity of the mark “Milk of Magnesia” did not affect the defendant’s other trade-mark “Leche de Magnesia.” In reaching this conclusion about “Leche de Magnesia,” we gave too little consideration to tho fact that the name “Leche de Magnesia” ought not to have been registered under section 5 when “Milk of Magnesia” was an invalid trade-mark because not in the exclusive use of the defendant during the ten-year period, and when “Leche dó Magnesia” might readily he taken for the English mark.
In the first place each mark employs the word “Magnesia,” and that fact when the compounds on which “Milk of Magnesia” and “Leche de Magnesia” are used are identical is likely to result in confusion. Moreover, “Leche” being the Spanish for “milk” is a word that has always been known to the many Spaniards in the United States and Porto Rico and readily beeomes understandable by others. Thus it stands on quite a different footing from words taken from the language of Hottentots or Patagonians which might be so unfamiliar as to be in effect fanciful or arbitrary terms. That “Milk of Magnesia” is sold in the United States and called for under the name “Leche de Magnesia” is apparent from the record (pages 132-136) and from the inherent probabilities of the ease. Consequently “Leche de Magnesia” is the ready equivalent of “Milk of Magnesia” to many people.
It has been the general practice of the Patent Office and of the courts to deny registration to any misleading term even where it only becomes misleading through the understanding of a foreign language. This is a sound rule which has long been followed. The words “exclusive use” in section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act have been regularly interpreted to mean exclusive use not only of the-specific mark, but also of any other confusingly similar mark or term. In re Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co., Inc., 49 App. D. C. 181, 262 F. 635; In re Bradford Dyeing Ass’n, 46 App. D. C. 512; Barclay v. Carter Medicine Co., 41 App. D. C. 240; Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. v. Old Lexington Club Distilling Co., 31 App. D. C. 223; Eastman P. M. Co. v. Comptroller-General, L. T. N. S. 195. See also Orange Crush Co. v. California Crushed Fruit Co., 54 App. D. C. 313, 297 F. 892; Marsh Capron Mfg. Co. v. Bates Machine & Tractor Co., 53 App. D. C. 235, 289 F. 633.
For the foregoing reasons we hold that the complainant was entitled to a decree canceling the trade-mark “Leche de Magnesia,” as well as the mark “Milk of Magnesia,” and the 'decree of the District Court is accordingly in all respects 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