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.

HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
Joseph Andy Ruiz appeals from an order denying what purported to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Ruiz is a federal prisoner and 'has not alleged facts establishing that the remedy by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Under these ■circumstances, and as provided in the last paragraph of section 2255, the district court was without jurisdiction to ■entertain an application, on behalf of R.uiz, for a writ of habeas corpus. But ■since the application was filed in the -court which imposed the sentence upon Ruiz, and which was therefore authorized to entertain a motion under section 2255, we will regard his application as such a motion.
On June 21, 1961, Ruiz pleaded guilty to a count of an indictment charging that, on or about April 12, 1961, he sold to Manuel Diaz a quantity of marihuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. On ■July 17, 1961, a judgment of conviction was entered on the plea of guilty, and •a sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed.
On July 11, 1963, the motion now before us was filed. It was denied on the ■court’s own motion and without hearing. Under section 2255, a district court is ■entitled to take such action if the motion and the files and records of the case eon■clusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
The principal ground for relief advanced in the motion was that section 176a is unconstitutional because in order to avoid violating that section a person charged thereunder would have had to incriminate himself in contravention of the Fifth Amendment. More specifically, Ruiz argues, in effect, that had he complied with certain other statutory provisions, the marihuana would have been lawfully imported; that compliance with these provisions would have been self-incriminating; and that therefore he was actually convicted of failing to incriminate himself.
Assuming that Ruiz could have assured lawful importation of the marihuana, the steps necessary to do this would not be incriminating because they would disclose only lawful conduct. In effect, then, he was not convicted for failing to report unlawful conduct. Russell v. United States, 9 Cir., 306 F.2d 402, relied upon by Ruiz is not in point for Russell was convicted for failure to make known to authorities that he was in unlawful possession of a firearm. Ruiz has not been convicted for failure to supply information concerning past unlawful acts.
Ruiz bases some argument upon that part of section 176a which provides that proof of possession of the narcotics shall be deemed prima facie evidence of a violation of the section. While we fail to see how this provision can have any significance with regard to the self-incrimination argument, it is in any event immaterial here. Ruiz was convicted on a plea of guilty and the statutory presumption was not applied.
We hold, that, insofar as the question of self-incrimination is concerned, the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the other grounds advanced in the motion, relating to use of informers, entrapment, and conspiracy. Proper use may be made of informers in obtaining evidence of violations of the narcotic laws. The question of whether there was improper use of informers in this ease is not open to Ruiz on this motion because he pleaded guilty. This is also true with regard to the question of entrapment. See Thomas v. United States, 9 Cir., 290 F.2d 696. Count III, to which Ruiz pleaded guilty, did not charge a conspiracy.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Section 176a, which is section 2(h) of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 42 Stat. 596, as amended by section 106 of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 570, reads in pertinent part:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whoever, knowingly, with intent to defraud the United States, imports or brings into the United States marihuana contrary to law, or smuggles or clandestinely introduces into the United States marihuana which should have been invoiced, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such marihuana after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or whoever conspires to do any of the foregoing acts, shall be imprisoned not less than five or more than twenty years and, in addition, may be fined not more than $20,000. * * *
“Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection, the defendant is shown to have or to have had the marihuana in his possession, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.
“As used in this section, the term ‘marihuana’ has the meaning given to such term by section 4761 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.”

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