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:
In this appeal, the government seeks reversal of the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging criminal contempt on the ground that the matter was not properly referred to the United States Attorney. We reverse.
FACTS
The government subpoenaed Henry Gerald Squartino, the appellant, to appear and testify before a grand jury. On November 8, 1983, Squartino appeared before the grand jury, but refused to testify, despite having been granted immunity under 18 U.S.C.A. § 6003 (West 1985).
On November 22, 1983, Squartino appeared before the grand jury a second time and again refused to testify. At that time, Squartino was taken before the district judge who issued the immunity order. The district judge explained to Squartino that he was required to testify under the grant of immunity and that if he continued in his refusal to testify, he could be found in contempt of court. The district judge again directed Squartino to appear and testify before the grand jury. Squartino reappeared before the grand jury and, for the third time, refused to testify.
On June 5, 1984, the government indicted Squartino on one count of criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C.A. § 401(3) (West 1966). On August 3, 1984, relying upon In Re Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher W., etc., 402 F.Supp. 725 (E.D.Wis.1975), the district court (a different judge) dismissed the indictment on the ground that “[t]o allow an indictment for criminal contempt to stand, where the investigation was not begun under the direction of an order of reference in the court whose order was originally disobeyed, would deprive the court of its recognized authority to control the conduct of criminal contempt proceedings.”
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The government contends that the district court erred in relying upon Amalgamated Meat Cutters because that decision was implicitly rejected in United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830, 837-38 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc) (citing with approval United States v. Morales, 566 F.2d 402, 404 (2d Cir.1977)). Under Williams, 622 F.2d at 838, “no action by the court is necessary before an indictment for criminal contempt may be handed up____”
Assuming that an order of reference is required, the government argues that the district judge’s instructions to Squartino to reappear before the grand jury in order to permit the government to lay the predicate for criminal contempt charges is such an order of reference.
Squartino argues that, under Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a reference order is required, and the district judge’s instructions to Squartino did not constitute such an order.
Squartino also argues that assuming that the district judge’s instructions constitute a sufficient reference order, the indictment should be dismissed on the ground that the government presented the criminal contempt charges to the same grand jury before which Squartino had refused to testify; the government thereby violated his fifth amendment right to due process. The government counters that the constitutionality of the challenged practice is well established.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 42 (West 1976), criminal charges may be prosecuted by summary disposition or upon notice and hearing. Rule 42 provides:
Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court____
(b) Disposition upon Notice and Hearing. A criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of the United States attorney or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest.
We decline the parties’ invitation to resolve the issue of whether criminal contempt charges brought under rule 42(b) may be prosecuted by indictment, without an order of reference from a district judge. We hold that assuming an order of reference is required, on the facts of this case, the district judge’s instructions constitute such a reference order.
In response to Squartino’s attorney’s request that the district judge make a contempt determination, the district judge replied:
No. Let [Squartino] go back before the Grand Jury and let the record reflect if the Government wants to lay the predicate for a criminal contempt action, they have the right to do it and, therefore, I am going to order that [Squartino] go back to the Grand Jury so that the full predicate can be laid, if that’s the direction in which the government wants to take it.
The district court erred in finding that these instructions did not constitute a reference order.
We also reject Squartino’s argument that presentation of the criminal contempt charge to the same grand jury before which he refused to testify violated his right to procedural due process. Squartino has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the same grand jury’s consideration of the criminal contempt charges. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our supervisory powers to dismiss the indictment. See United States v. Hyder, 732 F.2d 841 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Morales, 566 F.2d 402, 405-06 (2d Cir.1977).
REVERSED and REMANDED
Decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit until overruled by this court sitting en banc. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc).

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