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, Appellee, v. Frederick MARSH, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 82-1888.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Feb. 10, 1984.
Decided Oct. 4, 1984.
Stephen M. Perry, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, with whom David M. Roseman, Casner, Edwards & Roseman, John Russell, Herlihy & Russell, Raymond Gillespie, Daniel Kelleher, Michael O’Laughlin, Anne Mackin, Stephen Morse, Guterman, Horwitz, Rubin & Rudman, and Martin Gideonse, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for defendants, appellants.
Tobin Harvey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., and John C. Doherty, Asst. U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges, and GIGNOUX, Senior District Judge.
This opinion also covers Nos. 82-1889, United States v. Anouncio Archbold; 82-1890, United States v. Jean Archbold; 82-1892, United States v. Jose Ospina; 82-1893, United States v. Victor Figueroa; and 82-1921, United States v. Augustin Archbold.
Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
COFFIN, Circuit Judge.
After our remand, the district court, 747 F.2d 7 clarified its earlier decision, affirming that its conclusion that defendants knew that the destination of the contraband was the United States was based on evidence which it deemed sufficient to prove such knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore proceed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence under this proper and rigorous standard.
Admittedly the evidence is circumstantial. There is no smoking gun. But, looked at starkly, taking evidence and inferences favorable to the prosecution, the situation appears as follows. The seven defendants were members of a crew who, with a Danish captain, manned a fairly large (116 foot) “mother ship” for some 19 days, from Colombia to a point 270 miles off the northeast coast of the United States, southeast of Nantucket Island. The ship was headed west, toward the continental United States, when it was apprehended. Of this crew a substantial proportion must have stood watches and been acquainted with the general course of their progress. The crew lived, slept, and ate in a common area. There was no apparent reason for secrecy or concealment, either of progress or destination.
Under these circumstances, to conclude that, after such a period of time, among such a small group, with knowledge of being so close to and headed toward the only large, as well as most affluent, market area, i.e., mainland United States, as opposed to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, Canada, a finder of fact could not reasonably have found that all defendants knew that the GRIMURKAMBAN’s destination was the United States, seems to us beyond the pale of realism. On the contrary, it seems to us that in such an informal setting, after almost three weeks at sea, the chief topic of interest would be the where and when of the end of the voyage, and that the absence of logical alternatives would sufficiently indicate the United States.
We therefore affirm the judgments below in the cases we remanded to the district court.

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