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.

PER CURIAM.
Appellants, representatives of an uncerti-fied class of employees and creditors of the defunct St. Louis Globe Democrat, Inc., challenge the district court’s dismissal of an action they brought against Jeffrey M. Gluck, Debra McAlear Gluck, and Landmark St. Louis Bank (collectively referred to as appellees) alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (RICO). We affirm.
Since the district court dismissed the appellants’ claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action, we must view the facts alleged in their complaint in the light most favorable to them. See Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1057 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 527, 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983). So viewed, the complaint alleges that from February of 1984, to the time the complaint was filed, the Glucks dominated and controlled the activities of the Globe with the sole purpose of prolonging its life by creating an illusion that the company was solvent and able to pay its debts. The complaint further alleges that the Glucks engaged in such activities in order to divert the Globe’s assets to their own use and later sell their Globe stock for the highest price obtainable.
In furtherance of this scheme, the complaint alleges that the appellees engaged in a vast array of fraudulent activities by use of the mail and wire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud). The alleged acts include: (1) a check kiting scheme whereby, during the first eight months of 1985, the Glucks drew 5,643 checks totaling $4,264,-038.66 on Landmark St. Louis Bank (Landmark) which were returned because the Globe’s accounts contained insufficient funds and on which Landmark received a total of $93,708.92 in bad check fees; (2) diversion of the Globe’s corporate assets including funds totaling $775,000 withheld from or owing to Globe employees for taxes, union dues, health insurance premiums, savings bond purchases, earned vacation pay, and United Way contributions; and (3) defrauding of creditors by preparing and distributing false financial statements and by failing to comply with the terms of a financing agreement with Citicorp Industrial Credit Corporation.
On June 25, 1986, 636 F.Supp. 463, the district court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted finding that the complaint failed to adequately allege a “pattern of racketeering activity” as the term has been construed by the United States Supreme Court and this Court. The court, applying our recent decision in Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252 (8th Cir.1986), found that although the alleged acts were sufficiently related to form a pattern, they constituted mere subdivisions of only one fraudulent scheme. Thus, the court found that the alleged acts lacked sufficient continuity to form a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
Review of the district court’s memorandum opinion reveals that it is fully consistent with our decision in Superior Oil, which we subsequently reaffirmed in Holmberg v. Morrissette, 800 F.2d 205 (8th Cir.1986). In those cases we held that a “pattern of racketeering activity” requires more than one fraudulent scheme. In this case, appellants allege only a scheme to keep the Globe afloat in order to loot it. Without more, the “pattern of racketeering” element of a RICO violation has not been alleged. Accordingly, we affirm.
. We are aware of the recent Second Circuit decision criticizing our holding in Superior Oil, and holding that two predicate acts committed with the common purpose of furthering a continuing criminal enterprise provide the continuity and relatedness apparently required by footnote 14 of Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346, 358-59 n. 14 (1985). See United States v. Ianniello, 808 F.2d 184 (2d Cir.1986). Nonetheless, we adhere to our position in Superi- or Oil.

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