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 for the Use and Benefit of FLOATING FLOORS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 21253.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
July 19, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1967.
Michael M. Weekes, Dillavou & Cox, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
David Leanse, Simon & Leanse, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.
Russell E. Smith, United States District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation.
RUSSELL E. SMITH, District Judge:
This case involves a notice problem under the Miller Act. The notice given in this case was not timely unless the time was extended by the furnishing of some replacement panels. We hold that the time was not extended, that there was not any material issue of fact, and we affirm the action of the trial court in granting a motion for summary judgment.
The United States contracted with Murray J. Schiff Construction Co. (Schiff) to do a job involving the use of floor panels. Schiff sublet to L. D. Reeder Co. (Reeder) which purchased the panels from Floating Floors, Inc. (use plaintiff), which, in turn, purchased them from Commercial Steel Company (Commercial), the manufacturer. Defendant furnished the Miller Act bond for Schiff. Reeder did not pay use plaintiff for the panels which were used in the job and it now seeks judgment against the defendant.
After the Miller Act notice time had expired, the United States notified Schiff that some of the panels had failed. Schiff called the use plaintiff and advised it of the failure. There is some conflict as to the substance of the conversation but this much is clear: Use plaintiff did not deliver the replacement panels to Schiff; it did not pay for them; it did not promise that it would deliver them. It did call Commercial, the manufacturer, and did furnish Commercial with a detailed list of the panels which had failed. Commercial did manufacture the panels and at Schiff’s request did ship them to Schiff C.O.D. Schiff paid Commercial for the panels.
There is a suggestion in the evidence that perhaps the panels were manufactured by Commercial at use plaintiff’s request and held for the use plaintiff’s account. We treat the case as if this were so, thus giving use plaintiff the benefit of every inference which the record would possibly support.
At the time of the conversations between Schiff and use plaintiff and use plaintiff and Commercial, the Miller Act notice time had expired and neither Schiff nor the defendant were in any way obligated to the use plaintiff. Schiff, having had no contractual relationships with use plaintiff, was obligated to use plaintiff neither to remedy defects in the panels nor to seek it out to complete the contract if the panels as installed rendered the performance of the contract incomplete.
The plaintiff’s act of having panels manufactured for its account standing alone and in the absence of any act of delivering the panels to the job site, paying for them, or assuming some responsibility to Schiff to deliver or pay for them does not constitute a furnishing or supplying and the notice time was not extended.
The judgment is affirmed.
. 40 U.S.C. § 270b(a).
. “Mr. Beere, [an ofifeer of use plaintiff] stated that he would have to get more information about the status of the project in order to determine just how we could handle the problem and therefore to hold the new panels until we at Commercial Steel heard from him at Floating Floors. We thereupon proceeded to manufacture the panels according to a list of them which Mr. Beere dictated to me over the telephone.” (The foregoing is from the affidavit of Robert S. Jendrek, Vice President of Commercial.)
. United States for Use of Weithman v. Buckeye Union Casualty Company, N.D. Ohio 1962, 207 F.Supp. 552. If it were otherwise, a use plaintiff by leaving a few defects behind him might extend the Miller Act notice time indefinitely.

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