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:
Dino IACAPONI, Appellant, v. NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, a Corporation.
No. 16259.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted March 29, 1967.
Decided June 23, 1967.
Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
William C. Walker, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE and SEITZ, Circuit Judges and BODY, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, plaintiff below, was seriously injured in an industrial accident. The appellee, as insurer of the appellant’s purported employer, induced the appellant to sign a “workmen’s compensation agreement” which subsequently defeated appellant’s effort to recover as an “independent contractor” in a negligence action he brought against his purported employer in a state court. Alleging that the insurance company induced him to sign the “workmen’s compensation agreement” by fraud, the appellant has brought this diversity action against the insurance company for damages.
The present complaint asserts, among other things, that in the state negligence action the plaintiff raised the issue of fraud in obtaining the “workmen’s compensation agreement”, but was ultimately denied recovery. Indeed, the present complaint alleges that he “has exhausted the state judicial remedies to set aside the default judgment based upon the fraudulent ‘workmen’s compensation agreement’, without relief therefrom”.
The appellee moved to dismiss the present complaint upon several grounds, among them that the state court’s rejection of the claim of fraud made the matter res judicata. Under Rule 8(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, res judicata is an affirmative defense, to be pleaded as such. However, in this case the fact that the fraud upon which this suit is based had been litigated in the state court appears on the face of the complaint. Moreover, neither in the state court nor in the court below does it appear that the plaintiff made an issue of the manner in which the res judicata issue had been raised. Rather, he undertook to contest it on its merits and lost.
The court below took judicial notice of the state proceedings and stated that its “examination of the Opinion of that [Common Pleas] Court shows that the Court considered these allegations and the evidence in support of them thoroughly and found that there was * * * no evidence that he was the victim of fraud.” Similarly, in affirming that judgment the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said that the court below had “found, in essence, that there was no clear evidence that appellant was * * * the victim of fraud”. Iacoponi v. Plisko, 1965, 419 Pa. 398, 399, 214 A.2d 504, 505. We are satisfied, as was the district court, that the merits of the fraud claim were fully presented before the state courts and resulted in an adverse decision.
It is true that the defendant in the state court was not the present defendant, but its insured. However, as the court below properly pointed out:
“ * * * The present defendant is the insurer for the defendant in the State Court action, both for liability and for Workmen’s Compensation coverage. Its agents secured the execution of the Workmen’s Compensation Agreement on behalf of the employer, the defendant in the Court below. Its counsel appeared for the defendants in the trespass action in the State Court. All of these facts are alleged in plaintiff’s present complaint.”
We agree with the district court that these circumstances show such privity between the present defendant and the state court defendant that the litigated issue of fraud is res judicata as to both. The insurance company would have been liable for any sum recovered in the state action and its counsel actually defended the action.
In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that it was not reversible error to decide the question of res judi-cata on motion to dismiss and that on its merits the decision was correct.
The judgment will be 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: 0