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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin J. SCHLENVOGT, DefendantAppellee, Capitol Indemnity Insurance Company, Surety, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13333.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Sept. 21, 1961.
James D. Montgomery and Garland W. Watt, Chicago, 111., Adams, Weston, & Montgomery, Chicago, 111., Turner, Cousins, Gavin & Watt, Chicago, 111., of counsel on the brief, for appellant.
James P. O’Brien, U. ■ S. Atty., Thomas W. James and John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, .111., of counsel, for appellees.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
DUFFY, Circuit Judge.
This appeal challenges a judgment entered in the District Court in the sum of $2,000 against the defendant, Capitol Indemnity Insurance Company (Capitol).
It appears that Capitol was surety on an appearance bond filed in behalf of one Edwin J. Schlenvogt, as principal. After a plea of guilty to a criminal charge, Schlenvogt was scheduled to appear on December 17, 1956 before Honorable Julius J. Hoffman in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Schlenvogt did not appear.
Judge Hoffman announced from the bench, “There will be an order terminating his bail and a bench warrant issued. * * * ” The clerk perpared a minute order reciting, “Enter bond forfeiture and bench warrant issue for failure to appear.” For some unknown reason, no action was taken by the United States for over four years. Then, on January 24, 1961, the United States filed a motion for judgment of $2,000 against Capitol. Judgment for that sum was entered, and a motion to reconsider the judgment was denied.
The main contention made by Capitol is that Judge Hoffman did not forfeit the bail on December 17, 1956. Capitol points out that the judge stated that an order would be entered “terminating his bail.” It would seem clear that the experienced district judge misspoke. There would be no reason for him to declare the bail bond terminated, and then to add immediately that a bench warrant would be issued. Furthermore, the minute clerk did make a correct entry that the bond had been forfeited.
Rule 46(f) (1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., requires that there be a forfeiture of bail when there is a breach of the conditions thereof. Furthermore, Rule 15(a) of the General Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois provides that “A memorandum of the determination of a motion, signed by the judge, or a notation made by the clerk at the direction of the judge, shall constitute the order * We must and do assume here that the order entered by the minute clerk was at the direction of the judge.
We find the contention of Capitol that there was not a forfeiture of the bail bond is without merit.
Relying on Rule 46(f) (2), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Capitol also advanced the argument that the District Court abused or did not exercise its discretion in denying the petition to set aside the bond forfeiture or remitting it in full or in part. We also find this contention to be without merit.
The District Court was fully justified in entering the judgment from which this appeal is taken.
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