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:
Anne B. SCHAFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16700.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 1966.
Anne B. Schafer, in pro. per.
Harold D. Beaton, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
Robert L. Taylor, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was awarded disability insurance benefits under Section 223 of the Social Security Act, as amended, for a period commencing on and after September 30, 1959. She contends that benefits should also have been awarded for a period commencing prior thereto, namely, on July 16, 1949, on which date she sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident. She did not file an application for the establishment of a period of disability until June 23, 1960. In her application she alleged that the date of the onset of her disability was March 28, 1951.
Appellant had a full hearing before the hearing examiner at which testimony and documentary evidence was offered. The injury which appellant sustained healed well from an organic standpoint and did not substantially interfere with the operation of her insurance business which she conducted gainfully until she sold it, partially in 1960 and the remainder in 1961. However, she was troubled with nervousness and emotional difficulty which became progressively worse over the years, and was diagnosed in 1959 and 1960 as severe psychoneurosis.
The Secretary relied on evidence of appellant’s combined organic and functional disorders in deciding that she was entitled to the establishment of a period of disability and an award of disability insurance benefits, and in fixing the date as September 30, 1959. Her claim for a period of disability prior to September 30,1959 was denied by the Secretary.
In our judgment, there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Secretary and the District Court did not err in affirming it or in denying the motion to remand.
There is a question whether retroactive relief may be granted prior to 1959 because of the restriction provided in Section 223(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(b). This point has not been raised by the Secretary and we do not pass upon it.
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