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:
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. C. S. LEONARD, individually and trading as Leonard Excavating Company, W. W. Wendell Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation and Agricultural Insurance Company, a New York Corporation.
No. 17170.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 24, 1968.
Decided Oct. 1, 1968.
Robert F. McCabe, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., J. M. McCandless, Robert F. McCabe, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief, for appellant.
James C. Larrimer, Dougherty, Lar-rimer, Lee & Hickton, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before BIGGS, FREEDMAN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, a California surety company doing business in Pennsylvania, appeals to this court from the denial of its motion for a new trial in the court below. The facts are as follows.
On December 26, 1963, Stanton Construction Company entered into a written contract with the Lower Yoder Municipal Authority of Cambria County, Pennsylvania, for the construction of a sewage collection system. Pursuant to the contract Stanton gave bonds for the faithful performance of the contract and the payment for materials and labor furnished. Fireman’s Fund was surety on the bonds. The United States made an assessment under Sections 3402-3403 of Chapter 24 (“Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages”) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. §§ 3402-3403 (1958)), against Stanton for the fourth quarter of 1963 and for every quarter of 1964, the last assessment date being November 4, 1964. Notice of liens was filed in the offices of the Prothono-tary and Recorder of Deeds for Allegheny County on November 9, 1964. The United States then executed on Stanton’s assets. It is clear that all interested parties including Fireman’s Fund had notice of the liens when filed.
On November 25, 1964 Stanton was declared in default by the Municipal Authority. At that time Stanton was in possession of pipe and other materials for which payment had not been made. Fireman’s Fund paid the materialmen and by reason of these payments acceded to Stanton’s interest in the materials under the assignment provisions of the bonds. On May 27, 1965 the United States sold the pipe and other materials at public sale to Wendell and Leonard, the new contractors. The Internal Revenue Service thereupon issued a certificate of sale to Wendell and Leonard. Fireman’s Fund objected to these proceedings claiming ownership of the pipe.
The suit at bar is to recover the value of the pipe, Fireman’s Fund contending that the material in question belonged to it by reason of subrogation. The argument is without merit. The federal tax lien was good against all persons having notice of it. See 12A P.S. § 9-401(2) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321-6322. Fireman’s Fund is merely a general creditor. Its rights as subrogee did not ripen until the declaration by the Municipal Authority of the default, by which time the federal tax liens had already been filed.
Accordingly, the judgment will be 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