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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES ex rel. BUCHALTER v. WARDEN OF SING SING PRISON.
No. 319.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 2, 1944.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 4, 1944.
See 64 S.Ct. 633.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
J. Bertram Wegman, of New York City, for appellant.
James B. M. McNally, U.S. Atty., and Richard J. Burke and Peter J. Donoghue, Asst. U.S. Attys., all of New York City, for appellee.
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The relator appeals from an order of the district court refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus to review his detention under the sentence of a state court of electrocution for murder. He had been convicted in a federal court of a federal crime, and was in custody in execution of its sentence. Being indicted for murder in the state court, the Attorney General of the United States brought him, still in the Attorney General’s custody, to the state court for trial. He was convicted, the Court of Appeals of New York has affirmed the conviction, 289 N.Y. 181, 45 N.E.2d 225, and the Supreme Court has in turn affirmed its judgment, 319 U.S. 427, 63 S.Ct. 1129. He has continuously protested against the legality of the Attorney General’s order bringing him to the state court, and he now protests against the surrender of his custody to the state authorities for execution of the sentence of the state court. These are the grounds of his application 'for the writ whose issuance the district court refused.
The Supreme Court decided in Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879, that the Attorney General by virtue of his office could bring a convict—still in his custody— for trial for another crime in a state court; but it also said that upon conviction in the state court, the execution of its sentence would follow completed execution of the sentence of the federal court. In the case at bar, the Attorney General has gone further, and after conviction has surrendered custody of the prisoner to the state authorities for execution; and unless the sentence of the state court is commuted, he will be electrocuted, and will never serve the remainder of his federal sentence, which has not been commuted, as was the case in Chapman v. Scott, 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 690. Obviously, he has actually the greatest possible interest in serving the remainder of his federal sentence, and the only question is whether that is an interest which the law recognizes: i.e., whether it is a “right.” It is not; imprisonment is punishment exacted by the state; it gives the convict no asylum, temporary or permanent, against his prosecution or punishment for other crimes. If it was unlawful for the Attorney General to surrender custody of the prisoner, and to make impossible any further execution of the federal sentence, it was not a wrong for him, for that sentence was imposed only in the interest of the United States, not in any degree whatever as a benefit to the relator. He has been deprived of nothing to which he was entitled; if the United States has been so deprived, he may not vicariously assert its rights.'
Only on one theory could he complain. If his sentence should be so far commuted that he not only escaped electrocution, but was released from state custody, and if the federal authorities then should seek to imprison him for the remainder of his federal sentence, conceivably he might be able to argue that the separation of that sentence into parts so far changed it, as to make the remaining imprisonment illegal. We do not suggest that this would be a valid argument; we only say that if it were, the time to raise it would not come until the federal authorties sought once more to imprison him.
Order affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0