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:
Howard Lee WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19994.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 18, 1965.
Howard Lee White, in pro. per.
Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Robt. J. Timlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and ELY, Circuit Judges.
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying the motion of Howard Lee White, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1964) to be released from federal custody.
In three criminal cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Southern Division, White was convicted on his pleas of guilty and committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of study under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b) (1964). At the conclusion of the study period, the sentences were modified but not in the presence of White. Relying on United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 84 S.Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224, White petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, complaining that under Behrens, he was entitled to be in court when the sentences were modified.
The petition was granted and, with White in court, the modified sentences imposed in these three cases were vacated and then reimposed. White then moved for relief under section 2255, asserting that the district court erred in two respects in reimposing the sentences, viz.: (1) the court failed to advise White at that hearing that he was entitled to the assistance of counsel, and (2) White’s motion made at that hearing to change his plea to not guilty was erroneously denied. On the day this section 2255 motion was filed, and without a hearing thereon, the district court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
The district court did not, at the hearing at which the sentences were imposed, advise lyhite that he was entitled to counsel at that hearing. The reason no such advice was given was because, at the time White pleaded guilty and was initially sentenced, and after being fully advised of his right to counsel, White expressly, insistently and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The court apparently inferred therefrom that White intended such waiver to apply throughout all proceedings in the cases in which the waivers were given.
White gave no indication at the hearing at which the sentences were reimposed that he did not understand that he had a right to the assistance of counsel at that hearing, or that he wished to withdraw his waiver previously given. Under these circumstances the court was entitled to assume that the waiver was still in effect, and was not required to again advise White of his right to counsel. See Panagos v. United States, 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 764, 765; Davis v. United States, 8 Cir., 226 F.2d 834. See, also, United States v. Washington, 3 Cir., 341 F.2d 277, 286.
With regard to the denial of the motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty, White did not make the motion until he knew the scope of the sentences the court had in mind. He stated no reason why he wished to withdraw his pleas of guilty. At the original imposition of sentences White expressly stated that he had committed the acts charged against him. The trial court has wide discretion in passing on such a motion. Zaffarano v. United States, 9 Cir., 330 F.2d 114, 115. A reading of the record convinces us that the court did not abuse its discretion. Assuming, without deciding, that the denial of a motion of this kind can be reviewed in a section 2255 proceeding, we hold that there was here no error.
Affirmed.

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