Task: songer_numappel

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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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.

EDWARDS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the proprietor of a used car business, and the corporation on two counts of violating 15 U.S.C. § 1984 and § 1990c (1976) by the alteration of odometers on two automobiles.
The individual defendant received a 45-day sentence and a $5,000 fine on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Before this court the appellants contend that Brandon, the owner of the business, suffered constitutional deprivations by the government violating his due process rights in questioning him before a federal grand jury. Both defendants also contend that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when federal agents entered the used car premises and read the odometer figures, according to the agents, through the car windows. In addition, defendants argue that the two cars in relation to which the convictions occurred had been sold by Brandon to a cousin, Jackie Brandon, before the agents observed the substantially reduced odometer mileage which established that the odometers had been altered.
Our inspection of the claimed due process abuse before the grand jury disclosed no such due process abuse as was involved in United States v. Doss, 563 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1977), nor could we ascertain any prejudice involved in his answers to the six questions which the District Judge required him to answer. Appellant appears from the record to have somewhat erratically claimed the Fifth Amendment in relation to some questions and answered without compulsion as to others. As to this issue we find neither due process abuse nor prejudice to the fairness of Brandon’s trial.
As to the Fourth Amendment claims, it appears that the District Judge correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the odometer and vehicle identification numbers applicable to the two vehicles involved in these convictions. The agents’ testimony in relation to them was undisputed. It was to the effect that they entered the used car lot, looked at the automobile, and were never asked to leave or forbidden to look in the windows. This was a commercial establishment open to the public, and the owner’s expectations of privacy could not be comparable to those situations involving entrance into a home or breaking into an automobile. See Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974).
As to defendants’ defense, based upon the argument that the cars involved had already been sold to Brandon’s cousin, Jackie, these claims were laid before the jury, along with government proofs that clearly indicated that the cars had been purchased by defendants and kept on the lot under the possession and control of defendants until the date of observation of the altered odometers. Under these facts the jury had a right to conclude that defendants were responsible for the alteration.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 2