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:
Ruben S. HERRERA et al., Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden, etc., Appellee.
No. 20455.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1966.
Ruben S. Herrera, Norman Pommier, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael R. Marron, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
Herrera and Pommier were jointly tried and separately convicted in California Superior Court on December 9 and 11, 1963. Herrera was convicted of a violation of section 245 of the California Penal Code, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Pommier was convicted of the same offense and also of robbery in the first degree. (Calif.Pen.Code § 211). They seek habeas corpus, which was denied by the trial court without a hearing.
Insofar as the petitioners rely upon the decision in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 487, 84 L.Ed. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, their claim for relief is foreclosed by Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.
They also assert that there was a violation of the rule laid down in Pointer v. State of Texas, 1965, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923. In that case the defendants were charged with robbing one Phillips. At the preliminary hearing neither of the defendants had a lawyer. Phillips testified against them, but they did not cross-examine. Before they were tried Phillips moved out of the state. The prosecution was permitted to introduce at the trial the testimony given by Phillips at the preliminary hearing. The Supreme Court held that the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses guaranteed by the 6th amendment is applicable to the states under the 14th amendment and reversed the conviction. In so doing it said:
“Because the transcript of Phillips’ statement offered against petitioner at his trial had not been taken at a time and under circumstances affording petitioner through counsel an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Phillips, its introduction in a federal court in a criminal case against Pointer would have amounted to denial of the privilege of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” (380 U.S., at 407, 85 S.Ct. at 1070.)
However, the Court also said:
“The case before us would be quite a. different one had Phillips’ statement, been taken at a full-fledged hearing at which petitioner had been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine.” {Ibid.)
In the present case, one of the parties claimed to be assaulted was one Ramsey. ' He testified at the preliminary hearing. So far as appears, both defendants were present and represented by counsel at that hearing and their counsel then cross-examined Ramsey. Even in this court petitioners do not assert that they were not represented at the preliminary hearing by counsel, that their counsel did not have a full opportunity to cross-examine, or that their counsel did not cross-examine. The prosecution was unable to produce Ramsey. Use of Ramsey’s testimony is permitted by section 686 of the California Penal Code, as it read at the time that petitioners were tried. The objection is that, apparently by agreement between the prosecutor and Herrera’s counsel, Herrera’s counsel read the questions and the prosecutor read the answers to the jury. It is not asserted that counsel objected either to the use of the transcript of Ramsey’s testimony or to the particular method whereby it was presented to the jury. Certainly it was within the power of counsel, who is and must be the manager of the law suit, to waive their objection to Ramsey’s testimony by failing to assert it, and to cooperate with the court and counsel in its presentation to the jury. See Nelson v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 1965, 346 F.2d 73, 78-79. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that the procedure followed deprived the petitioners of any federally protected constitutional right.
Other contentions made by the petitioners deal with state procedure and do not raise any federal question.
Affirmed.
. Under California law, the magistrate must immediately inform the accused of his right to counsel, allow him time to obtain counsel and assist him in doing so, and assign counsel if he desires and is unable to employ counsel. (Calif.Pen.C. §§ 858, 859, 860.) Examination of witnesses must be in his presence, and cross-examination is allowed (iMd. § 865).
. Calif.Pen.Code § 686, subd. 3 reads in part as follows:
“In a criminal action the defendant is entitled:
“ * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him, in the presence of the court, except that where the charge has been preliminarily examined before a committing magistrate and the testimony taken down by question and answer in the presence of the defendant, who has, either in person or by counsel, cross-examined or had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness * 111 * the deposition of such witness may be read, upon its being satisfactorily shown to the court that he is dead or insane, or can not with due diligence be found within the state. * * * ”
. We do not presume that the state courts commit errors, much less that they have deprived defendants appearing before them of their constitutional rights. The presumptions are the other way. Sampsell v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 721, 725; Schlette v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 827, 833-834.

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