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:
SOLVAY PROCESS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
No. 9519.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 7, 1941.
Edmund M. Preston and T. Justin Moore, both of Richmond, Va., C. V. Porter and Victor A. Sachse, both of Baton Rouge, La., and Monte M. Lemann and J. Blanc Monroe, both of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Lewis M. Gill, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In the above numbered and entitled cause the National Labor Relations Board, at the request of the National Defense Mediation Board, has petitioned us to clarify and interpret the decree entered herein on March 27, 1941, particularly paragraph 2(b), which is as follows: “2(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oil Workers’ International Union, Local No. 424, as the exclusive representative of all the employees at the respondent’s Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, laboratory employees, gatemen, brine-well employees, and mill, water, and wharf employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment, provided, however, that the Solvay Process Company or any labor organization at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant other than Solvay Employees Council may petition the Board for a certification of representatives, in which event the Company may abide the decision of the Board and comply with any supplemental order to enforce certification by the Board, in lieu of bargaining collectively with Oil Workers’ International Union, Local No. 424, as herein ordered”;
The request, so far as this court is concerned, is without precedent, but in view of the present situation regarding national defense and the peculiar facts of the case, we have decided to entertain the request. However, this action is not to be considered as a precedent for other cases in the future. The pleadings before us show the Solvay Company is engaged in important defense work. A strike of any considerable magnitude would seriously interfere with this work and would adversely affect the welfare of the public and the government of the United States.
It also appears from the pleadings that the Chemical Workers’ Union No. 22609, American Federation of Labor, is claiming that the members of that local constitute a majority of the employees of the Solvay Process Co. That union objects to the company entering into an agreement with the Oil Workers’ International Union No. 424 until that question is decided, and had petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to call an election to determine which labor organization should be designated as representing all the employees as the bargaining agent with the Solvay Process Co. That petition was dismissed by the Board.
In interpreting the decree we hold that the Solvay Process Co. is obligated to negotiate with the Oil Workers’ International Union No. 424, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, without waiting for an election, and that the proviso of section 2(b) does not create a condition precedent to the taking effect of that part of said subsection.
We consider that patriotism in the emergency should override any factional differences between labor organizations and the Board should act promptly on a petition hereafter filed by a labor union or the Company and fully consider and determine the merits, and call an election within the shortest possible period within which it may be effectively held.

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