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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SCHAPIRO & WHITEHOUSE, INC., Respondent.
No. 9906.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 4, 1965.
Decided Nov. 3, 1965.
Nancy M. Sherman, Attorney, N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Wayne S. Bishop, Attorney, N. L. R. B., on brief), for petitioner.
Marvin C. Wahl, Baltimore, Md. (Blanche G. Wahl, and Wahl & Wahl, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for respondent.
Before BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and MARTIN, Chief District Judge.
ALBERT Y. BRYAN, Circuit Judge:
The National Labor Relations Board found that Schapiro & Whitehouse, Inc. had unwarrantedly refused to bargain with the union certified by the Board as its employees’ representative, and ordered the employer to desist from further refusal. 148 NLRB No. 102 (September 11, 1964); National Labor Relations Act § 8(a) (5) and (1), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) and (1). Answering the present petition of the Board to enforce its decision, the employer denied the union’s representation of the employees, arguing that the election of the union was invalid. §§ 10(e) and 9(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 160(e) and 159(d).
No final decision can be made of the election contest, we think, until the Board has counted three ballots which it has found free of challenge but has never opened. We shall stay further proceedings here until these votes have been canvassed.
A consent election was conducted by the Board on August 30, 1963 upon a written stipulation between the company and the union approved by the Board. Among other things the stipulation required the parties to submit to the Regional Director lists of the employees eligible and ineligible to vote. Also, it prescribed as the unit to participate in the election all production and maintenance employees. Before the polling began on election day, the requisite lists were delivered to the union representative, examined by him and endorsed with his signature as “inspected”. They were then filed with the Board agent. The count of the ballots after the election showed 89 ballots for the union, 85 against it, and 7 challenged.
The employer disputed the election upon the Regional Director’s rulings, all afterwards adopted by the Board, in (1) sustaining the union’s challenges to the “Finkelstein” ballot and the “erasure” ballot, and (2) holding harmless campaign leaflets circulated by the union among the employees, almost all of whom are Negroes, assertedly containing an appeal to race for their support. The Finkelstein ballot was rejected because the Board found him not within the stipulated electorate, the erasure ballot because the Board found its marking so ambiguous as to void it.
Of the 7 challenges, 6 were by the union and 1 by the company. One of the union’s 6 was upheld by agreement, and the employer’s challenge was upheld by the Board. This left 5 challenges — all union — to be resolved. Of these, 3 were overruled, 2 sustained. These latter 2 are the Finkelstein and erasure ballots. The 3 which were overruled have never been opened.
As is evident, if 1 of the unopened ballots is in favor of the union, it would have a majority, no matter what the outcome of the Finkelstein and erasure challenges and the other two unopened ballots. Thus if only 1 is a “Yes” vote, the questions arising on the Finkelstein and erasure ballots would be purely academic, for the union would win, at the least, by 90 to 89. Plainly, then, it would be inadvisable for us to undertake a determination of these challenges until the 3 still sealed ballots are revealed.
Of course, we should not pass upon the propriety of the campaign leaflets until the tally of the votes is complete and the union has established a majority. Should the 3 unopened ballots be against the union, as is suspected, and should this court refuse to uphold the Board on either the Finkelstein or erasure ballot, the union has failed to establish a majority and the point about the leaflets becomes moot.
We will request the Board to unseal and count the undisclosed 3 ballots, in the manner in which its regulations provide for the opening of ballots, and report the results to this court. Meanwhile the case will be held in abeyance on our docket.
Order in accordance with opinion.
. The Warehouse, Retail & Mail Order Employees, Local Union No. 590, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.

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