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:
Dorothy Sewall MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. NATIONAL SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY et al., Appellees.
No. 19346.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 10, 1965.
Decided Jan. 6, 1966.
Petition for Rehearing En Bane Denied Feb. 14, 1966.
Mr. Philip W. Amram, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Gilbert Hahn, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John E. Powell, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Arthur P. Drury, John M. Lynham and Henry H. Paige, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before Edgerton, Senior Circuit Judge, Fahy and McGowan, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Charlotte Isherwood, a United States citizen who died domiciled in Italy, left an “Italian will” disposing of some $20,-000 worth of personal property in Italy and an “American will” disposing of stocks, bonds and cash, all located in the District of Columbia, worth about $530,-000. The American will named the present appellees, residents of the District of Columbia, as executors. Appellee Trust Company, to which the decedent entrusted her American will, also had custody of her American property under a long-standing agency agreement.
The decedent’s sole heir and next of kin opposed, and now appeals from, an order admitting the American will to probate. We affirm the order. The District of Columbia is clearly the most convenient place for probate of the will and administration of the estate. Apparently it is the only place in the United States, if not in the world, where probate is possible.
“The state in which testator’s property is situated has jurisdiction over the property, and it has the power to grant original probate: that is, it may hear and determine the question of the validity of testator’s will, without waiting for the courts of testator’s domicile to pass upon such question. * * * If testator has executed separate wills for his property in different states, the state in which he is not domiciled may admit to probate the will which disposes of property in that state, although it has not been probated in the state of testator’s domicile.” 3 Page On Wills § 26.15 (1961).
“On general principles, the Probate Court, as a term of the local District Court, has territorial power to grant probate of the will of a non-resident. * * Probate of wills of non-residents has in fact from time to time been granted.” 2 Mersch, Probate Court Practice in the District of Columbia § 1842 (1952). According to 1962 Pocket Parts which John L. Garvey has added to Mersch’s work, “The current practice of the probate court is to refuse to grant probate to the wills of non-domiciliaries. Support for this position can be found in the dicta” in Lipscomb v. Lipscomb, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 240, 265 F.2d 822 (1959). In Lipscomb we said “Unless the testator was domiciled here, the District Court had no jurisdiction to probate the will * * But whether this statement is dictum or decision, Lipscomb is distinguishable on several grounds. The Lipscomb opinion does not indicate that all the decedent’s property in this country was located in the District of Columbia, or that there was any good reason for probating the will elsewhere than at the testator’s domicile. And as the Probate Court has pointed out, (1) in the present case, unlike Lipscomb, there are two separate and independent wills, one of which has been filed at the domicile of the decedent; (2) the question here is not, as it was in Lipscomb, between the District of Columbia and an American state, but between the District of Columbia and a foreign country; and (3) appellant does not suggest that the American will could be probated in Italy or elsewhere, but only that it should not be probated here, “an indirect attack on the will itself.”
Appellant relies on § 11-512 of the District of Columbia Code, 1961 ed., which provided “The probate court shall not, under pretext of incidental power, or constructive authority, exercise any jurisdiction whatever not expressly given by this Code * * Even if this language were still in effect, it would not conclude the question before us. Cf. Pascucci v. Alsop, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 147 F.2d 880, cert. denied, 325 U.S. 868, 65 S.Ct. 1406, 89 L.Ed. 1987 (1945). But on December 23,1963, when Congress enacted a revised Part II of the District of Columbia Code, it omitted § 11-512 and did not include anywhere in the Code any language similar to that on which appellant relies. 77 Stat. 478, 482; D.C.Code (Supp. IV 1965) § 11-522 and Revision Notes on § 16-3107.
Affirmed.
. Cf. Restatement, Conflict of Raws § 469, Comment c. (1934).

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