Task: songer_r_bus

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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

PER CURIAM.
Begay, a Navajo Indian, appeals from a judgment of conviction for burglary within Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 contending the trial court erred in the admission of his written confession into evidence and that the evidence is insufficient to support conviction because the confession is corroborated only by independent evidence of the corpus delicti. The latter contention is self-defeating and needs no elaboration. Independent evidence of the commission of the crime consistent with the confession is ample to support conviction. Mapys v. United States, 10 Cir., 409 F.2d 964; Zamora v. United States, 10 Cir., 369 F.2d 855.
On the night of July 22, 1969, a store at Shiprock, New Mexico, was burglarized. Begay and two other Indians were indicted for the offense; the two other defendants pleaded guilty. During investigation of the burglary an F.B.I. agent, Gersky, having affirmative knowledge of Begay’s involvement, contacted Begay at his home and said he would like to talk with him about the burglary and they could talk at his home or the police station. Begay, 19, chose the police station and rode there with the agent; he did not say anything to the agent on the way, nor had he yet been advised of his rights. At the station he was advised of his rights and did sign a waiver of rights form and then made an inculpating statement.
A motion to suppress was heard and denied on two grounds: (1) that defendant was not in custody at the time of his interrogation and Miranda did not then apply; (2) the F.B.I. agent properly advised defendant of his rights. The record supports these determinations. Even assuming arguendo that Miranda custodial interrogation existed from the time appellant got into the car to go to the station, it does not appear his rights were violated or that any inculpating evidence was obtained prior to the time appellant was informed of his rights. Indeed, the testimony of Gersky, deemed credible by both court and jury, reveals a very commendable effort to assure Begay’s complete understanding of his rights.
Begay also asserts his confession should be held involuntary as a matter of law because coerced by “inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere” as projected into his subjective background. The record does not support such a claim. Begay was 19, attended school midway through the eleventh grade, was a good student, spoke English fluently and gave no indication of incapability to understand. We are satisfied that he was afforded all possible protections and that his confession was voluntary.
Affirmed.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0