Task: songer_appbus

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
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
This case presents an unusual question under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. In 1969, Staple-ton was convicted under six counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U. S.C. §§ 371, 472 and 473. He appealed, and we remanded the case. Our order read as follows:
The government concedes because of government error that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
The cause is remanded to the district court with authority to entertain a motion from defendant for a new trial, which, in the circumstances here, should be granted.
When he appeared before the district court, however, Stapleton did not move for a new trial. The following colloquy occurred:
“THE COURT: It is a rather strange order from the Ninth Circuit. In the light of this order it seems to say that the defendant is entitled to a new trial and the Court will order a new trial and I will set it down for trial setting.
MR. LEE [attorney for Stapleton]: Your Honor, if I may just for clarification, let the record show that this is on the Court’s own motion and over the objection of the defendant.
THE COURT: Yes.”
This appeal is from a conviction at the new trial that had thus been ordered by the trial judge.
We are forced to agree that our order is “rather strange.” It does not reverse or vacate the judgment. It might be construed to mean that the district court need not have granted a new trial if the defendant did not move for a new trial. In that case, Stapleton would have still stood convicted under the first judgment. That, however, is not the result that he was after when he appealed. We are confident that, when he refused to move for a new trial, he was not seeking to preserve the original judgment. He was simply making a record to preserve a double jeopardy claim when the court granted the new trial. We think that the proper construction of our order is that we wanted a new trial granted, and, instead of ordering one ourselves, instructed the trial court to do so.
There is no doubt that jeopardy attached when Stapleton was first tried. However, a defendant who appeals and is found entitled to a new trial has waived his right to claim double jeopardy at the second trial. See, e. g., United States v. Ball, 1896, 163 U.S. 662, 672, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300; United States v. Jorn, 1971, 400 U.S. 470, 484, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543. It does not matter that the decision is based on the government’s confession of error, rather than on independent finding of error by the appellate court. Stroud v. United States, 1919, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103. There, a conviction was reversed on appeal, on the basis of a confession of error. The Court said:
[T]he conviction and sentence upon the former trials were reversed upon writs of error sued out by the plaintiff in error. The only thing the appellate court could do was to award a new trial on finding error in the proceeding, thus the plaintiff in error himself invoked the action of the court which resulted in a further trial. In such cases he is not placed in second jeopardy within the meaning of the Constitution. Id. at 18, 40 S.Ct. at 51.
Our order was made in response to Stapleton’s appeal from his first conviction. In spite of the form of our order, the only way to eliminate the error confessed by the government was to grant a new trial. That is the gist of what we said, although we did not order a new trial. The principle of Stroud is equally applicable here. There was no double jeopardy at the second trial.
Stapleton’s second claim of error is without merit. The trial was by the court. Seven exhibits had been produced by the government and marked for identification. There was extensive testimony about each of them, but they were not formally offered or received in evidence. Nonetheless, both parties, and the judge, acted as if they were in evidence, and the judge relied upon them in finding Stapleton guilty. When the parties rested, defense counsel raised no question about the exhibits not being in evidence. Thus the exhibits had in fact been admitted. After the judge made his decision, and at the time when Stapleton appeared for sentencing, the government asked the judge to reopen the case to permit the government to move that the exhibits be admitted. The court granted the motion and formally admitted the exhibits. This was, in substance, a mere correction of the record to show what actually happened. Sta-pleton was not prejudiced.
Affirmed.
. A different problem would be presented if Stapleton had not appealed and the trial judge had ordered a new trial on his own motion, over Stapleton’s objection. See cases cited in 8A J. Moore, Federal Practice H 33.02 [1] at 33-4-33-5 (1973) and 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 551 at 483 (1969). The Supreme Court has not ruled on this question. See United States v. Smith (1947) 331 U.S. 469, 474-475, 67 S.Ct. 1330, 91 L.Ed. 1610. We express no opinion on it.

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.
Answer:

Answer: 0