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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James SHELLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 116, Docket 23246.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 12, 1954.
Decided Dec. 29, 1954.
Edgar G. Brisach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Leonard P Moore, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Louis J. Castellano, Jr., Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant-appellant.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.
CLARK, Chief Judge.
Defendant Shelley was prosecuted below on an information charging misuse of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1544. The case was tried to the court on a stipulation of facts stating that Shelley had delivered a passport made out in his name to one Claflin in the Southern District of New York, knowing that Claflin intended to use the passport to obtain the illegal entry into the United States of an alien named Koch. Thereafter Claflin caused the passport to be given to Koch in Europe, who used it to effect entrance into the United States at the New York International or Idlewild Airport in the Eastern District. After the court had received the stipulation, Shelley made motions both for dismissal and for a judgment of acquittal. Judge Inch granted a motion to dismiss for failure to show commission of the offense charged in the Eastern District of New York, but refused to rule on other motions going to the merits. Shelley appeals from failure to grant these other motions, contending that they were intimately involved in the motion to dismiss for improper venue. In a motion to dismiss the appeal the government asserts that the order below was unappealable because interlocutory; but in further contending that defendant has no standing to appeal, it asserts that in fact a crime was committed in the Eastern District.
An order of dismissal for lack of venue, contrary to the assertion of the government, is final and appealable. “That the dismissal was without prejudice to filing another suit does not make the cause unappealable, for denial of relief and dismissal of the case ended this suit so far as the District Court was .concerned.” United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 794, 795 n. 1, 69 S.Ct. 824, 825, 93 L.Ed. 1042. And see Butler v. Ungerleider, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 238; Lopinsky v. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self Systems, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 422; Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 360, 362, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 947, 70 S.Ct. 484, 94 L.Ed. 584; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ff 54.12 [1], p. 114 (2d Ed.1953).
We do not need to reach the claim of the United States that Shelley .should be held under 18 U.S.C. § 2 to have committed a crime in the Eastern District as an aider and abettor of Koch’s action at Idlewild, because we accept the other contention of the United States that Shelley has no standing to appeal. A judgment is appealable only at the behest of a party aggrieved by it. United States v. Adamant Co., 9 Cir. 197 F.2d 1, certiorari denied Bullen v. Scoville, 344 U.S. 903, 73 S.Ct. 283, 97 L.Ed. 698; Keeler v. C.I.R., 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 707; In re Michigan-Ohio Bldg. Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 191. Having received the contested order of dismissal at his own request, Shelley is a successful litigant without appealable interest. He is not injured, and — luckily for him— may not appeal. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.

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