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:
CORNING SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and The Corning Bank, Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD; Richard Pratt, James J. Jackson, and Andrew Di Prete, as members of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; and Pocahontas Federal Savings and Loan Association, Appellees.
No. 83-2551.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 18, 1984.
Decided June 13, 1984.
See also D.C.; 562 F.Supp. 279.
James T. Lantelme, Washington, D.C., for Federal Home Loan Bank Bd.
Hilburn, Calhoon, Forster, Harper & Pruniski, Ltd., James W. Lance, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee Pocahontas Fed. Sav. & Loan.
Gill, Skokos, Simpson, Buford & Owen, P.A., Little Rock, Ark., for appellants.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, FLOYD GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
FAGG, Circuit Judge.
This is an action to review the decision of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to approve an application for a branch office. The district court found that the administrative record contained adequate evidence to support the Board's findings and that the Board’s decision to approve the branch was justified. Corning Savings & Loan Association v. FHLBB, 571 F.Supp. 396 (E.D.Ark.1983). We affirm.
The Pocahontas Federal Savings and Loan Association filed an application with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board for approval to open a branch office in Corning, Arkansas. The Corning Savings & Loan Association and The Corning Bank protested the application and an administrative hearing was held for fact-gathering purposes. The Board approved Pocahontas’ application and the Board’s supervisory agent, pursuant to delegated authority, approved a temporary location for the branch office. The day after its temporary location was approved, Pocahontas opened its Corning office for business and it has continued in operation ever since.
The Corning Savings & Loan Association and The Corning Bank brought this action in federal district court challenging the Board’s decision to grant Pocahontas’ application on a variety of legal and factual grounds. The district court, after considering the administrative record, granted the Board’s motions for summary judgment. Appellants allege two issues on appeal: (1) that the district court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment when material issues of fact remain unresolved; and (2) that the district court should have allowed the administrative record to be supplemented.
With respect to the first issue, whether issues of material fact remain, we believe that appellants misconceive the nature of the review process for branch office decisions by the Board. Judicial review of an administrative decision by the Board to authorize a branch office is very narrow. This court can set aside agency actions, findings, or conclusions, only if they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The court must not substitute its judgment for that of the agency; the court “need only ascertain that there is a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made by the agency.” Madison County Building & Loan Association v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 622 F.2d 393, 396 (8th Cir.1980). In applying that standard, judicial review must focus upon the existing administrative record, not a new record made initially in the reviewing court. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). The reviewing court is not “free to hold a de novo hearing.” Id. at 141, 93 S.Ct. at 1243. Because judicial review in branch office cases is limited to the existing administrative record, these cases have traditionally been resolved by summary judgment. See First National Bank of Crown Point v. Camp, 463 F.2d 595, 599-600 (7th Cir.1972); Poinsett County Savings & Loan Association v. FHLBB, 504 F.Supp. 610, 612-13 (E.D.Ark.1980); Bank of Ozark v. FHLBB, 402 F.Supp. 162, 166-67 (E.D.Ark.1975); Elm Grove Savings & Loan Association v. FHLBB, 391 F.Supp. 1041, 1042-43 (E.D.Wis.1975). Thus, given the limited nature of judicial review in branch office cases, appellants’ argument that factual issues remain is inapposite. We have examined the administrative record and we beheve that it provides a rational basis for the Board’s action.
Appellants’ second issue is that the district court should have allowed them to supplement the administrative record to show that the Board’s supervisory agent was biased and that there were illegal ex parte contacts between Pocahontas and the Board. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), the Supreme Court noted that “inquiry into the mental processes of administrative decisionmakers is usually to be avoided.” Id. at 420, 91 S.Ct. at 825. The Court continued that “where there are administrative findings that were made at the same time as the decision,” such as in this case, “there must be a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior before such inquiry may be made.” Id. The district court considered appellants’ allegations and “found no evidence of bias or conflict.” Indeed, the district court found “that the Supervisory Agent handled these proceedings in a fair and impartial manner.” Corning Savings & Loan Association v. FHLBB, supra, 571 F.Supp. at 404. The district court also found that there was nothing to support appellants’ claim of improper communications between Pocahontas and the Board. Id. at 406, 91 S.Ct. at 818. We concur in the district court’s assessment. Appellants have failed to make the strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior that is necessary, and the district court did not err in denying their request to supplement the administrative record.
Accordingly, we affirm.

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