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.

Opinion:
Roman Columbus BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 73-1785.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 1973.
Decided Jan. 15, 1974.
Roman Columbus Brown, pro se.
Donald J. Stohr, U. S. Atty., and Richard E. Coughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., filed brief for appellee.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and STUART, District Judge.
W. C. Stuart, District Judge, Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Brown appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denying his petition for a correction of his federal sentence.
On May 5, 1972, appellant was arrested by the St. Louis, Missouri, police on a charge of armed robbery. On May 8, 1972, a federal detainer was lodged against appellant for parole violation. On June 15, 1972, the state charge was dismissed and appellant was subsequently returned to federal custody. During the period from May 5 to June 15, appellant was in continuous state custody, unable to secure his release on bail. Appellant seeks to have the time spent in state custody credited against his federal sentence on the theory that the federal detainer was the cause of his inability to make bail.
Title 18, United States Code, § 3568, provides in part:
The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an offense shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. The Attorney General shall give any such person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed. (Emphasis added.)
Focusing on the “in connection with” language of this section, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Davis v. Attorney General (5th Cir., 1970), 425 F.2d 238, 240, held that a prisoner denied release on bail by state authorities because of an outstanding federal detainer lodged against him is in custody in connection with a federal offense and entitled to credit against his federal sentence for the time spent in state custody. This court has recognized the authority of Davis. See Shields v. Dagget (8th Cir., 1972), 460 F.2d 1060, 1061.
The court is of the opinion that appellant’s case is within the rule set forth in Davis. Appellant is entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the decision below is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order granting appellant the credit to which he is entitled against his federal sentence.
Judgment reversed and remanded with directions.
. Since appellant received no credit for the time spent in state custody against any state sentence, there is here no problem of double credit for the time spent in state custody. This case is thus distinguishable from the facts in Shields and in Doss v. United States (8th Cir., 1971), 449 F.2d 1274.
. Although appellant only seeks to have his federal sentence shortened by five days, it appears from the record that he is entitled to credit for the entire period from May 8, the day the detainer was lodged against him, to June 15, the day he was released from state custody.

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.

Choices:

Answer: 0