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.

ROBERT VAN PELT, Senior District Judge.
This case again presents the issue of the proper application of the Dangerous Special Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3575. An earlier panel of this court was confronted with nearly identical issues in United States v. Kelly, 519 F.2d 251 (8th Cir. 1975), and decided the case contrary to the government’s position in Kelly and in this case.
We are asked to determine in the instant case
1) whether the government’s original notice seeking sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3575 was adequate;
2) whether the district court erred in holding the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3575 and 3577 to be inconsistent with due process and unconstitutional.
In the original notice of November 28, 1972, the government did little more than repeat the language of the statute.
The government contends that its notice was sufficient and that the statute does not require the notice to set forth separate reasons supporting both a special offender classification and a dangerous classification. It contends that the requirements of dangerousness as set forth in § 3575(f) can be met with a finding of special offender status under § 3575(e)(3).
Any evaluation of the merits of the government’s claim must be made within the limits of Kelly, and since that case, in effect, found against the government on the issue presented, we must affirm the lower court’s finding and hold the notice in this case inadequate.
Because our holding is limited to the sufficiency of the notice under this court’s interpretation of § 3575 in Kelly, supra, we do not need to reach, and should not decide, the more important question concerning the constitutionality of the Dangerous Special Offender Act.
For the reasons given we affirm.
.Now comes the United States, by and through its attorneys, Bert C. Hurn, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, and Gary Cornwell, Special Attorney, United States Department of Justice, who are charged with the prosecution of the above named defendants before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1952, which are felonies committed when the defendants were each over the age of 21 years, and hereby files this notice with the Court, in compliance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3575(a), stating that upon conviction for said felonies these defendants are each subject to the imposition of sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3575(b) as dangerous special offenders.
We do believe that said defendants are dangerous special offenders for the reason that such felonies constituted, and were committed by defendants in furtherance of a conspiracy with three or more persons to engage in a pattern of conduct criminal under the laws of the United States, and the State of Oklahoma, and the defendants agreed to and did organize, plan, finance, direct, manage and supervise all or part of such illegal conduct and activities, and agreed to give and receive a bribe and to use force as part of such conduct, all within the meaning of § 3573 [sic] (e)(3) of Title 18, United States Code.
. (f) A defendant is dangerous for purposes of this section if a period of confinement longer than that provided for such felony is required for the protection of the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant.
. (e) A defendant is a special offender for purposes of this section if—
******
(3) such felony was, or the defendant committed such felony in furtherance of, a conspiracy with three or more other persons to engage in a pattern of conduct criminal under applicable laws of any jurisdiction, and the defendant did, or agreed that he would, initiate, organize, plan, finance, direct, manage, or supervise all or part of such conspiracy or conduct, or give or receive a bribe or use force as all or part of such conduct.
. The writer of this opinion, if, to borrow a recent expression of Judge Heaney of this court, he could “write on a clean slate,” would not subscribe to the conclusions of Kelly. It is an approved practice as to most indictments to charge a crime in the language of the statute and defendants are then afforded rights to a bill of particulars. Coupling these facts with the broad alternatives available to the court under 18 U.S.C. § 3575 in holding a hearing and sentencing, the writer would vote to hold the notice sufficient.

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