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:
J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 78-1879.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 25, 1979.
Decided Feb. 27, 1979.
Homer L. Deakins, Jr., Ogletree, Deakins, Smoak & Stewart, Greenville, S.C., for petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Jonathan R. Harkavy, Smith, Patterson, Follin, Curtis, James & Harkavy, Greensboro, N.C., for Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union.
Before BUTZNER, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On December 13, 1978, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union filed a petition for review of an order entered by the National Labor Relations Board with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 14, 1978, J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., filed in this court a petition for review of the same order. The parties question which court is the proper forum for review.
Section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 160(f), grants a right of review to any party aggrieved by a final order of the Board. The process of review is initiated by the filing of a petition with the circuit court of appeals in the circuit where the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have taken place or where the party resides or transacts business, or with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Review of administrative orders is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a) which provides that:
If proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted. The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.
Stevens contends that the Union filed its petition with the Second Circuit prematurely and that the Union’s filing was therefore invalid. The company urges us to consider its petition to be the “first instituted” proceeding within the meaning of § 2112(a).
Stevens has asked the court to compel discovery against both the Board and the Union in order that facts bearing on the jurisdiction of the court may be ascertained. Meanwhile, the Board has filed a certified list of record materials with the Second Circuit in accordance with the directive of § 2112(a) and has moved the court to transfer the instant review petition to the Second Circuit. Finally, the Union has moved the court for leave to intervene in support of the Board’s motion for transfer. During the pendency of these motions, the Board has supplied most of the information sought by Stevens in its motion to compel discovery. The company has therefore withdrawn its motion with respect to the Board.
The information furnished by the Board concerning notice to the parties of its decision raises serious questions regarding the priority of the Union’s petition. The consensus among those courts that have considered the question, however, is that the court of first filing should determine the validity of the petition filed in that court. Industrial Union Dept. v. Bingham, 187 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 59, 570 F.2d 965, 968 n. 4 (1977). Any other rule would create a risk of unseemly conflicts between courts should two or more circuits examine the question of which proceeding was first instituted and should they reach different conclusions. See Chatham Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 404 F.2d 1116, 1118 (4th Cir. 1968). If the Second Circuit determines that the petition filed with it is invalid or if it otherwise decides that “[f]or the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice” the matter should be transferred, it is empowered under § 2112(a) to transfer the proceedings back to this court.
Accordingly, we transfer these proceedings, including the motions filed by the parties, to the Second Circuit.

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