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:
SUN OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 18566.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1961.
Herf M. Weinert, Beaumont, Tex., Robert E. May, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
John C. Mason, Gen. Counsel, F. P. C., Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Federal Power Commission has filed its motion to dismiss the Petition for Review filed by Sun Oil Company. Its Petition for Review seeks to have this Court set aside two orders of the Federal Power Commission, one issued June 2, 1960 and the other issued July 15, 1960. The proceedings that were before the Commission and which were dealt with by the said orders were in docket Nos. G-13617, G-13619, G-16685, and G — 16686.
The motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the orders appealed from are not final orders of the Commission and thus are not subject to review. Briefly stated, the orders denied motions made by the petitioner that the Commission terminate the proceedings then pending in the docket numbers referred to. The state of the proceedings at the time was that several increases in rates had been filed by Sun and had been suspended under Section 4(e) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717c(e), and Sun was collecting the higher rates under the undertaking to make refunds if the rates were not ultimately approved. Proof had already been taken under the Section 4(e) proceeding, but the investigation had not been completed. The basis of Sun’s motion to terminate was its contention that the Commission had terminated other proceedings in like situations, and Sun contended that “It was manifestly unfair and discriminatory for the Commission to terminate suspension proceedings involving other independent producers, even though general rate proceedings had been instituted and some were being heard, * * * ” and to refuse at the same time to terminate Sun’s proceedings under identical circumstances.
This effort to cause the Commission to terminate proceedings during the investigation period and the Commission’s refusal to do so, of course, deals with an interlocutory or non-final issue. Sun may still obtain all the benefits it seeks if the Commission’s proceedings are permitted to go to a normal conclusion. The Commission’s refusal to abort the proceedings is not a reviewable order under the clear authority of Magnolia. Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 236 F.2d 785, and associated cases.
In order to conserve the time, expense and energies of both parties we deem it appropriate to dispose of this motion summarily, rather than to delay its consideration until the case would otherwise be reached in its normal place on the calendar.

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