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:
In the Matter of CINTRA REALTY CORPORATION, Alleged Bankrupt.
No. 310, Docket 30969.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 18, 1967.
Decided Feb. 21, 1967.
James O. Porter, Buffalo, N. Y., for appellant Cintra Realty Ccrp.
Alexander C. Cordes, Buffalo, N. Y. (John R. Lytle and Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee Fleet-Wing Corp.
Before MEDINA, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
MEDINA, Circuit Judge:
On July 14, 1966, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against the Cintra Realty Corporation by Fleet-Wing Corporation, an unsatisfied judgment creditor. When the initial attempt to serve an actual agent of Cintra failed, Fleet-Wing obtained an order extending the time for service and for service on the Secretary of State of the State of New York. Service pursuant to this order was not timely and on August 24th, a second extension was obtained. This second order set the return date as September 13th and service was completed on August 29th. The mode of service was specified as follows:
Ordered, that said Phillips, Lytle, Yorkey, Letchworth, Hitchcock & Blaine, as attorneys for said Fleet-Wing Corporation, give notice to said Cintra Realty Corporation by directing the U. S. Marshal to serve said Petition and subpoena upon Cintra Realty Corporation by delivering a copy of said subpoena and Petition to the Secretary of State of the State of New York, who is duly authorized by the Laws of the State of New York to accept service on behalf of said Cintra Realty Corporation, and by mailing a copy of said subpoena and Petition to ■the corporation at its last known address.
The Secretary of State mailed a copy of the petition to Cintra but it was returned marked “address unknown.” Cintra had moved its office but had failed to notify the Secretary of State. The attorneys for Fleet-Wing did nothing further to give Cintra notice of the proceeding.
The principal point made by Cintra as appellant here is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to make the adjudication of bankruptcy because service of process, while it would have been sufficient under the New York State and federal rules, N.Y.C.P.L.R., Section 311 (1), N.Y. Business Corporation Law, McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 4, Section 306, Fed.Rules of Civ.Proc. 4(d) (3) and (7), was not in strict compliance with the order made by Judge Henderson. The claim is that the order requires two mailings, one by the Secretary of State and another by the attorneys for Fleet-Wing. Even if the order be deemed ambiguous, we are satisfied with Judge Henderson’s interpretation of his own order, to the effect that a single mailing was sufficient.
Various other contentions require no discussion. The notice was timely, despite appellant’s claim to the contrary. In view of the concession that Cintra was “defunct” and “insolvent,” and that “no hardship would result to Cintra from a continuance of the bankruptcy proceedings,” it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to open the default.
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