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. Carl Oakley MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Barrentine MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 71-2143, 71-2864.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 31, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1972.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM.
These appeals follow a consolidated nonjury trial. Carl Oakley Moore was convicted of unlawfully possessing under his custody and control property (sugar) used or intended for use in violation of the Internal Revenue laws. 26 U.S.C.A. § 5686(b). He was sentenced to one year. His wife, Willie B. Moore, was convicted of wilfully assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with federal officers, knowing them to be performing official duties. 18 U.S.C.A. § 111. She was sentenced to three years.
Federal agents discovered an unregistered still 150 yards from the residence of one John Wynn. One hundred gallons of illegal whiskey was observed at the site. The still was put under surveillance. Later in the day the officers observed a pickup truck approaching Wynn’s residence and a Negro male, Wynn, board the truck which drove to within 36 feet of the still. Wynn walked to within a few feet of the still where he was arrested. Officer Wil-hjelm then ran toward the pickup, yelling that he was a federal officer and ordering the occupants to halt. As the truck sped away, Wilhjelm observed its occupants to be a white male and white female, and the bed of the truck to be loaded and covered by a brown object. He returned to where Wynn was in custody near the still. Wynn admitted he owned the still and said the “white people” had come to “pick up the stuff.” A radio message was then sent to other agents, directing them tó intercept the pickup. They did so, using unmarked cars.
None of the agents were in uniform. The evidence is in dispute on the question of whether the intercepting officers used their sirens. On approaching the pickup, one officer shouted that he was a federal agent and displayed his badge. As the agents approached the truck, they could see a package of sugar exposed on the bed of the truck (the truck contained 1200 pounds of sugar). Officer Zeigler told Carl Moore he was under arrest for transporting sugar to an illegal distillery. Moore refused to get out of the pickup. When the officers tried to remove him, Willie B. Moore pulled a .38 pistol, waved it menacingly, and threatened to kill the officers. She was disarmed by one of them.
On appeal Carl Moore asserts that the agents lacked probable cause to arrest him or search his vehicle without warrants. Willie B. Moore attacks the sufficiency of the evidence upon which she was convicted. Both contentions lack merit. The officers clearly had probable cause to suspect the Moores of criminal activity. The flight of the suspects whose identity was unknown provided the exigent circumstance necessary for a warrantless arrest. Willie B. Moore argues that she did not know the men approaching the pickup were federal officers. There is controverted testimony on whether the officers sounded their siren, but uncontroverted evidence that officer Zeigler displayed his badge and identified himself before Mrs. Moore brandished her gun. Moreover, Officer Wilhjelm had identified himself as a federal agent at the still site. Taking the view of the evidence most favorable to the Government, we believe there is substantial evidence supporting the conviction.
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: 0