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:
Appellant Octavio Saenz appeals his conviction for making false material declarations before the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. He alleges there was insufficient evidence, that the declarations were not material to the issue before the grand jury, and that the court did not comply with Rule 32(a)(1) F. R.Cr.P., in sentencing him. We have reviewed the record and find these allegations' to be without merit. The conviction is affirmed.
Appellant is the mayor of Benavides, Texas, a position he has held since 1955. Appellant was convicted of lying to the grand jury about the reason he withdrew $5,000 from a bank account styled “City of Benavides Special Sinking Fund,” and his involvement in and knowledge of the opening of the account. In 1972, a federal grand jury in San Antonio began an investigation of George B. Parr for tax evasion. Parr was eventually convicted, and his conviction has been affirmed by this Court. Parr was counsel for the Duval County Water District, and there was much evidence that Parr had used water district funds for his own use. See United States v. Parr, 509 F.2d 1381 (5th Cir. 1975). Parr purchased irrigation equipment from a company in Houston and paid for part of it from the City of Benavides Special Sinking Fund. The fund had been established when a bank in Dallas returned some $39,000 to the city after bonds were paid for. Though the draft for some $33,000 + worth of equipment was drawn on the water district, the account was paid with Benavides funds. The bank was unable to explain the reason for this.
Five days after the $33,000+ draft, appellant withdrew $5,000 from the same account for himself. The grand jury questioned appellant about the two transactions. He denied any knowledge of the $33,000+ withdrawal. He testified the $5,000 was compensation for his services and had been agreed to by the city council. Appellant denied knowing when the sinking fund was established, how much money was deposited, or giving the Dallas bank instructions to transfer the money to the local bank.
At trial it was established that the city council had never authorized the $5,000 to appellant. A Dallas banker, Banyon, testified about appellant’s instructions to him regarding the transfer of the money. There was also evidence of appellant’s signature on the signature cards.
Appellant took the stand and denied remembering any transactions with the Dallas bank. He admitted the genuineness of his signature.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, there was sufficient evidence to convict appellant of false testimony before the grand jury. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1941). Appellant’s testimony was contradicted on both counts and in regard to both instances in the indictment. The question of credibility was for the jury. They simply did not believe appellant when he did not remember any transactions, seeing any letters, etc., regarding the opening of the sinking fund, while yet identifying his signature on the signature card required to open the account. The city council contradicted his story about the $5,000.
Appellant next alleges his testimony was not material to the grand jury’s investigation of Parr. Appellant did not raise this matter at trial, though the trial judge made an express finding of materiality. Materiality is a legal question to be decided by the court alone. The test is whether the false testimony was capable of influencing the tribunal on the issue, or whether it would have the natural effect or tendency to influence, impede, or dissuade the grand jury from pursuing its investigation. See United States v. Gremillion, 5 Cir., 1972, 464 F.2d 901, 905, and the cases cited therein.
One of the grand jury members testified to its inquiry regarding Parr and the expenditure of City of Benavides funds for him or the water district. They were interested in people who were parties to the transaction, parties such as Saenz must have been, given his establishment and control of the sinking fund. When Saenz’ testimony is looked at in respect to the large cash withdrawals from the city fund, it would tend to influence, impede or dissuade the grand jury on the issue of the involvement of Parr in these matters. The testimony was material.
Finally, appellant alleges the court did not comply with Rule 32(a)(1), F.R.Cr.P., because when it sentenced him, it read from a typed judgment. A review of the record reveals that both appellant and his counsel were allowed to speak on appellant’s behalf before he was sentenced. The record does not reveal whether the court read its judgment; however, the rule was complied with, thus appellant has no ground for complaint.
A review of the record reveals no other errors of law.
Affirmed.

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