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:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CATAWBA COUNTY, Appellee, v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N. A., Appellant. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CATAWBA COUNTY, Appellee, v. William B. CAMP, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, Appellant.
Nos. 71-1489, 71-1490.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Aug. 25, 1971.
Decided Sept. 14, 1971.
John R. Jordan, Jr., Raleigh, N. C. (Jordan, Morris & Hoke, and William R. Hoke, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for Wachovia Bank and Trust Co.
C. Westbrook Murphy, Washington, D. C. (John E. Shockey, Atty., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., William D. Appler, Walter H. Fleischer, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and William L. Osteen, U. S. Atty., on brief), for William B. Camp.
Hugh Cannon, Raleigh, N. C. (Sanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough and E. D. Gaskins, Jr., Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Charles T. Hagan, Jr., Robert G. Baynes, and Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts, Greensboro, N. C., and Eugene J. Metzger, Barbara-Cherrix O’Leary and Metzger, Schwarz, McKen-na & Kempler, Washington, D. C., on brief, for amici curiae.
Before SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district judge, D.C., 325 F.Supp. 523, enjoined the Comptroller of the Currency from issuing a certificate to Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N. A. evidencing approval of the establishment of a branch bank in the Hickory Plaza Shopping Center, Catawba County, North Carolina, and enjoined Wach-ovia from opening the branch. Relief was granted because of the Comptroller’s express declination to make the findings required by N.C.G.S. § 53-62 (b) which, in First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company v. Camp, 409 F.2d 1086 (4 Cir. 1969), we held he was required to make in order to permit the establishment of a branch bank in North Carolina. The Comptroller and Wachovia appeal, and we affirm.
In addition to requesting us to reconsider our decision in First-Citizens, the Comptroller advances as a ground for reversal the argument that he is not bound to consider the North Carolina “need and convenience” test for the establishment of a branch bank, because it is his duty to exercise his discretion under federal law to permit the establishment of branch banks in the light of federal policies expressed in the federal antitrust statutes to foster competition; and he has concluded that “[t]he entry of Wachovia * * * into the Hickory/Catawba County area * * will bring another strong and able competitor to the Hickory banking market * * * [and] will stimulate the existing banks to maintain and improve their services in an effort to maintain their market shares.” The short answer to this contention is that we perceive no conflict between the policies of the federal antitrust statutes and the North Carolina “need and convenience” test for the establishment of a branch bank, particularly where, as here, the Comptroller has also found that “[t]here is no evidence that Wachovia’s entry will damage the stability of any banks in the area.” See North Carolina ex rel. Banking Commission v. Bank of Rocky Mount, N.C. App., 182 S.E.2d 625 (1971).
We reaffirm our holding in First-Citizens. See, as additional support, First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 130, 131, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969). And we reiterate that the Comptroller “was bound by North Carolina’s ‘need and convenience’ and ‘solvency of the branch’ criteria” as set forth in § 53-62(b). 409 F.2d at 1091. From this it follows, as the district judge concluded, that when the Comptroller expressly declined to make the findings required by § 53-62(b), although he made numerous other findings, he acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving Wachovia’s application to establish a branch in the Hickory Plaza Shopping Center; and his action was correctly enjoined.
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: 1