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 v. OLDENBURG.
No. 8103.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 18, 1943.
Edward J. Hess, of Chicago 111., for appellant.
J. Albert Woll, U. S. Atty., and Thomas B. Hart, Sp. Asst, to U. S. Atty., both of Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before MAJOR, KERNER and MIN-TON, Circuit Judges.
MAJOR, Circuit Judge.
The defendant, along with five others, was charged by an indictment returned May 1, 1940, with violating 18 U.S.C.A § 338 (using the mails to defraud), 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q (using the mails to defraud in sale of securities), and 15 U.S.C.A. § 77e (using mails in sale of unregistered securities). This appeal is from a judgment of conviction, entered July 3, 1942.
Defendant Oldenburg’s indictment and sentence resulted from his .association and connection with an organization known as Universal Order of Plenocrats. This Court has heretofore had occasion to discuss the method of its operations. The conduct complained of in the instant case is similar to that related in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Service Association, et al., 7 Cir., 106 F.2d 232, and there is no need to review the activities which were previously condemned. This Court held in that case that certificates similar to those sold by defendant for the Universal Order of Plenocrats were securities under the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77b, et seq. The Court also enjoined certain of the named defendants (not appellant) from certain fraudulent representations in the further sale of such certificates. It is admitted that defendant had knowledge of this prior suit and of the injunction issued therein. The same practice which we have previously condemned as fraudulent and as a misrepresentation is clearly shown in the instant case, and without doubt discloses a scheme to defraud.
The only question seriously urged on this appeal is whether defendant knowingly participated in the scheme to defraud. That such was the fact is conclusively demonstrated by appellant’s own admissions. Defendant admitted that he knew of the prior suit and injunction; he admitted that he was at one time president of the Universal Order of Plenocrats; he admitted that as a real estate broker he had knowledge of the value of farm land; he admitted selling certificates subsequent to the issuance of the injunction; he admitted soliciting memberships after being informed of the Universal Order of Plenocrats’ insolvency. Defendant’s name also appeared on the letterhead of the order as a member of the National Board of Managers. In view of these admissions, it is inconceivable that the defendant was without knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and that he did not participate therein.
It is also pointed out that the government failed to offer any proof that the securities described in counts 19 to 24 of the indictment were not registered. As the sentence imposed, however, was no greater than that which could have been imposed on any other one count of the indictment, we need not consider this point.
Defendant’s further contention that he honestly believed that which the Universal Order of Plenocrats taught and the ideas disseminated by him, does not justify his fraudulent activities. Moore v. United States, 7 Cir., 2 F.2d 839; Linn v. United States, 7 Cir., 234 F. 543; Pandolfo v. United States, 7 Cir., 286 F. 8.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment imposed by the District Court must 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