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:
The REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Libelant & Cross-Respondent-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent and Cross-Libelant-Appellant.
No. 20049.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 11, 1970.
Robert G. McCreary, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, Arter & Hadden, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief, for appellant.
Thomas O. Murphy, Cleveland, Ohio, Johnson, Branand & Jaeger, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief, for appellee.
Before WEICK, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue in this appeal is the propriety of an award of interest over a period of six and one-half years, in the amount of about $50,000, computed from the date of disbursements covering repairs, in a “both to blame” collision case in admiralty.
The damages sustained by The Reiss Steamship Company (Reiss), as a result of the collision, were $273,832.98. The damages to the vessel of United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) were only $10,503.31. The District Judge found U.S. Steel solely at fault. 245 F.Supp. 444 (N.D. Ohio, 1965). U.S. Steel appealed and we reversed, holding that both vessels were equally at fault. 374 F.2d 142 (6th Cir. 1967). The District Court then entered an interlocutory decree finding both vessels equally at fault and referring the issue of damages to a Master if the parties could not agree upon them.
Reiss filed in this Court a petition for a writ of mandamus against the District Judge, seeking an interpretation of the mandate, which petition was denied. The parties then reached a compromise whereby U.S. Steel paid $130,832.41 to Reiss. The District Court entered a final decree ordering payment of that amount together with interest from December 4, 1962 (the date when certain disbursements were made) to June 2, 1969 (the date when U.S. Steel made the payment.) 304 F.Supp. 304 (N.D. Ohio, 1969).
This Court has approved denial of prejudgment interest in a “solely at fault” case involving property damage, Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Kelley Island Lime & Transport Co., 176 F. 492 (6th Cir. 1910), and in a personal injury action, Cleveland Tankers v. Tierney, 169 F.2d 622 (6th Cir. 1948). In Great Lakes Towing Co., however, we stated that the rule as to the awarding of prejudgment interest was not a fixed one but rested within the discretion of the Court and would not be reviewed unless it has been “palpably abused.” 176 F. at 498
An award of prejudgment interest is generally within the discretion of the Court. The Scotland, 118 U.S. 507, 518-519, 6 S.Ct. 1174, 30 L.Ed. 153 (1886); O’Donnell Transport Co. v. City of New York, 215 F.2d 92, 95 (2d Cir. 1954); The Wright, 109 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1940); Kawaski Zosensho v. Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione, 11 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1926).
Pre judgment interest has been awarded in “solely at fault” cases. Luckenbach Steamship Co. (United States) v. The Thelka, 266 U.S. 328, 45 S.Ct. 112, 69 L.Ed. 313 (1924); The President Madison, 91 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1937). Such interest has also been awarded in “both to blame” cases. The Manitoba, 122 U.S. 97, 7 S.Ct. 1158, 30 L.Ed. 1095 (1887); National Marine Service Inc. v. Talley, 348 F.2d 589 (5th Cir. 1965).
U.S. Steel contends that it was inequitable for the District Court to award interest during procedural delays for which either the Court or Reiss were responsible. It points out that Reiss delayed the filing of its libel for twenty-two months after the collision. The ease was further delayed by the successful appeal of U.S. Steel and by the mandamus action filed by Reiss in this Court.
The District Court in its discretion could have disallowed interest for the time of delay in filing the libel, O’Donnell Transport Co. v. City of New York, supra,, but did not do so. We cannot find from this record that in failing to abate the interest during this period the District Court abused his discretion.
We are of the opinion, however, that it would be inequitable to award interest for the period from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal by U.S. Steel until the date of entry of the judgment of reversal, and likewise it would be inequitable to award interest during the period from the date of filing the petition for a writ of mandamus to the date of entry of the order denying the writ. Cf. Petition of Wills Lines, 251 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, Wills Lines v. Tankport Terminal, 356 U.S. 939, 78 S.Ct. 782, 2 L.Ed.2d 814.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the District Court be modified so as to disallow interest during the two periods herein provided, and as modified the judgment is affirmed. Each party shall pay one-half of the costs.

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