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:
Ex parte LEY GAY SEONG. LEY GAY SEONG v. CARR.
No. 6044.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 2, 1930.
You Chung Hong, of Los Angeles, Cal. (George W. Hott and Chas. E. Booth, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and P. V. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Harry E. Blee, U. S. Immigration Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., on the brief), for appellee.
Before RUDKIN and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and KERRIGAN, District Judge.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The question for decision is, Was the appellant barred from admission to the United States by reason of his age? The controlling fafrts are as follows: The appellant is the son of a Chinese merchant lawfully domiciled in the United States. He was bom in, China on June 14, 1908. On May 21, 1929, he embarked on the steamship “President McKinley” and was manifested to the port of San Pedro, Cal. The vessel arrived at the port of San Francisco on June 12, 1929, and remained there for about three days before proceeding to San Pedro. She did not arrive at San Pedro until June 16, 1929. It will thus be seen that the appellant attained his majority while the vessel was in the port of San Francisco, and was three days above the age of majority when the vessel arrived in San Pedro, the port to which he was manifested.
The right of minor children of domiciled Chinese merchants to enter the United States is not expressly guaranteed by treaty or statute, but rests on judicial construction only. Wong Ock Jee v. Weedin (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 962. In that case the applicant attained his majority while on the high seas, en route to the United States on an American vessel, and it was- held that his application for ad-' mission was: properly denied. The plain inference from that decision is that an applicant such as the appellant must apply for admission during his minority, or; at least, must arrive at the port to which he is manifested during the period of minority.
Some stress seems to be laid on Rule 9 of the Rules of the Immigration Department, which provides: “No alien Chinese twenty-one years of ago or over, American reckoning, at tho time of arrival at a port of the United States, shall be permitted to enter otherwise than of his own individual status as a member of tho exempt classes and upon presentation of the certificate prescribed by-Section 6 of the Act of July 5, 1884, and the visa required by tho Immigration Act of 1924, irrespective of whether or not he is a member of the household of his exempt merchant father.”
Tho language, “a port of the United States,” might doubtless be construed to mean any port of the United States, regardless of the port to which the alien is manifested, but a departmental rule which would admit an alien of this class who did not apply for admission, or reach the port at which he could lawfully be admitted, until after attaining his majority, would be of doubtful validity, to say the least. The appellant did not and could not apply for admission at the port of San Francisco, and his mere presence there at the time of attaining his majority did not of itself entitle him to be admitted at the proper port three days thereafter.
The order is 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