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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. GREENVILLE COTTON OIL CO.
No. 13867.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 12, 1952.
Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Labor Relations Bd., D. P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Washington, D. C., Labor Relations Bd., for petitioner.
Allen Clark, Greenville, Tex., O. B. Fisher, Paris, Tex., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.
Upon findings that Respondent had, within the six months’ period immediately preceding the filing of the charge against it, to-wit, on June 18th, 1948, and afterwards, committed unfair labor practices, the Board entered its decision and order requiring Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and dismissing the complaint insofar as it alleges, or depends upon, violations occurring before June 18, 1948.
Respondent, declining and refusing to comply with the order, the Board is here by petition, seeking its enforcement.
Taking no issue with the findings, that it had committed unfair labor practices, Respondent insists that they were not committed within six months of the filing of the charge against it, on which it was convicted, and, therefore, the issuance of the complaint, upon which the findings were based, was precluded by the proviso to Section 10(b) of the Amended National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(b).
As more specifically stated, this is Respondent’s position: The charge, of which Respondent was found guilty, was filed not on Dec. 18, 1948, as claimed by the Board, but on January 4, 1949, and the acts complained of and found against it occurred on June 20th, more than six months before.
The Board, on its part, urges upon us that the amended charge of January 4th, referred to by respondent was but an amplification and carrying forward of the charge first filed on December 18th, and the filing of that charge stopped the running of the statute.
We agree with the Board that this is so. Further, if Respondent were right, it would avail it nothing for the evidence shows occurrences of unfair labor practices within six months of January 4th, sufficient to support the Board’s findings and order.
No ground for setting aside the Board’s order being made to appear, and the evidence appearing fairly to support it, the Board’s order will be enforced as entered,
. 92 N. L. R. B. 1033.
. “ * * * 1. Cease and desist from basing reinstatement on the condition, express or implied, that employees humble themselves and forget American Federation of Grain Millers, A. F. L., or any other labor organization; promising employment in return for a favorable vote in a Board election; threatening loss of employment if they vote in favor of the said Union in a Board election; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
“2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Greenville, Texas, plant copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix A. * * * ”
. “ * * * no complaint shall issue based upon any Unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made. * * * »

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