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, Appellee, v. George WILSON, Appellant.
No. 85-2323.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 22, 1987.
Decided April 16, 1987.
R. Thomas Day, Asst. Federal Public Defender, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Michael W. Reap, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
George Wilson appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a sawed-off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5681(d) (1982). For reversal, Wilson raised several issues, including the claim that the government used a disproportionate number of its peremptory challenges during voir dire to strike black prospective jurors in violation of his sixth amendment right to an impartial jury.
Following Wilson’s trial and while his appeal was pending before this court, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Batson v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (Batson ). Batson substantially redefined the evidentiary burden placed on criminal defendants claiming an equal protection violation due to the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges. Under Batson, a defendant “may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant’s trial.” Id. at 1722-23. The Supreme Court expressed no view on the merits of any sixth amendment arguments in Batson, id. at 1716 n. 4, yet we will apply the equal protection analysis of that case in this appeal, despite Wilson’s reliance on a sixth amendment argument.
Following Batson, it remained to be determined whether the new standard announced in that case was to be given retroactive effect to cases pending on direct appeal. We originally issued a decision in this appeal holding that Batson would not be retroactively applied. Finding no other reversible error, we affirmed the judgment. Our opinion was filed November 14, 1986. Wilson's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc was denied and the mandate issued January 14, 1987. On January 13, 1987, the Supreme Court held that the rule announced in Batson is to be retroactively applied to all cases not yet final at the time of its decision on April 30, 1986. Griffith v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (Grif fith). This category of cases includes Wilson’s appeal.
Because this case was not yet final on April 30, 1986, and is thus subject to the holding of Griffith, we have, on our own motion, recalled the mandate and withdrawn the opinion previously filed in this appeal. United States v. Wilson, No. 85-2323 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 1987) (order). We now order the judgment entered by the district court vacated and we remand the cause for further proceedings on the Bat-son issue only.
On remand, the district court is to determine whether a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination has been established by the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges during voir dire to strike prospective black jurors. If so found, the district court is to require the prosecutor to provide a “neutral explanation” for the peremptory strikes. The defendant must then be given the chance to rebut the proffered explanation as a pretext.
If the district court concludes that a Bat-son violation has been established, Wilson is entitled to a new trial. If the district court determines that no Batson violation has been proved, the district court should enter a new judgment upon the jury verdict of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
. Such a determination by the district court is an interlocutory order and is not appealable until final judgment has again been entered.

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