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, Petitioner, v. B.B.S.A., INC., d/b/a Burger Boy Food-O-Rama, Respondent.
No. 10224.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 8, 1966.
Decided March 11, 1966.
Elliott Moore, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst.. Gen. Counsel, and Herbert N. Bernhardt, Atty., N. L. R. B., on brief), for petitioner.
Frederick F. Holroyd, Charleston, W. Ya. (Claude R. Hill, Jr., Fayetteville, W. Va., Gardner & Holroyd, Washington, D. C., and Love, Abbot & Hill, Fayetteville, W. Va., on brief), for respondent.
Before BOREMAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and CRAVEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order of March 9, 1965, against respondent and we think the order should be enforced. The Board’s Decision and Order are reported at 151 N.L.R.B. No. 58.
The Board found that respondent violated: (1) Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by threatening to discharge employees and to close the respondent’s restaurant if they selected the Union; (2) Section 8(a) (3) and (1) by its discriminatory discharge of Stephen Stogden because of his union activity; and (3) Section 8(a) (5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. We find substantial evidence on the whole record to support these findings and we deem it unnecessary to restate the evidence upon which the Board relied.
At the hearing, the Company called for the production of prehearing affidavits which Stogden, the discharged employee, had given to the Board and the Union. General Counsel produced a “copy of the affidavit given the Board agent” and an unsigned statement apparently taken by the Union. On further examination, Stogden testified that from time to time he went over to the union hall and that he gave two or more statements (he was not certain as to the number) but he did not recall signing any of those given to the Union. Both counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Union stated that the documents produced for Company inspection were the only such documents in their respective “files.” Counsel for the Company then moved to strike all of Stogden’s testimony “for failure of the Government to provide us with all the affidavits, pretrial statements of this witness.” The Board’s rule upon which the Company relies provides for production of a statement “in possession of the general counsel, if such statement has been reduced to writing and signed or otherwise approved or adopted by the witness.”
The Company now contends that the statements of counsel for General Counsel counsel for the Union that they had no other statements of Stogden in their “files” were evasive and should not be treated as denials of possession of other Stogden statements which should have been produced. But counsel for the Company did not specifically indicate dissatisfaction with or objection to the sufficiency of responses of opposing counsel. In the absence of specific objection the trial examiner was justified in interpreting the responses as assurances that there were no other statements the production of which was required by the Board's rule.
We conclude that the failure to strike Stogden's testimony was not error. In fact, the only statement affirmatively shown to have met the specifications of the Board’s rule — that is, a statement adopted by the witness and in the General Counsel’s possession — was produced.
Enforcement granted.
. See 151 N.L.R.B. No. 58.
. Sec. 102.118 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Series 8 as amended, 29 C.F.R. Section 102.118 provides in part:
“After a witness called by the general counsel has testified in a hearing upon a complaint under section 10(c) of the act, the respondent may move for the production of any statement of such witness in possession of tbe general counsel, if such statement has been reduced to writing and signed or otherwise approved or adopted by the witness. Such motion shall be granted by the trial examiner. If the general counsel declines to furnish the statement, the testimony of the witness shall be stricken.”

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