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:
Maxwell OLIVER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Henry E. COWAN, Superintendent, etc., Respondent-Appellant.
No. 73-1474.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 12, 1973.
Decided Nov. 21, 1973.
James M. Ringo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., for respondent-appellant. Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen. of Ky., G. Edward James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., on brief.
Curtis L. Wilson, Lexington, Ky., (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appel-lee.
Before EDWARDS and LIVELY, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting habeas corpus relief to a prisoner who is serving a life sentence imposed by a jury following a plea of guilty. Upon indictment for willful murder, Maxwell Oliver pled guilty with the assistance of appointed counsel on January 21, 1959. Under Kentucky procedure the jury fixed the punishment in criminal cases and was permitted in this case to decree either death or life imprisonment. On the same day that the jury verdict was received, the court passed formal sentence of life imprisonment in the absence of counsel for Oliver. The question presented is whether, under the circumstances of this case, formal sentencing was a critical stage in the criminal proceedings at which the defendant was entitled to the assistance of counsel.
Under the code of criminal practice in effect in Kentucky in 1959 the court was permitted to enter judgment immediately in cases involving guilty pleas while being required to wait two days before rendering judgment in other cases. Kentucky Criminal Code, Section 283; Sorke v. Commonwealth, 271 Ky. 482, 112 S.W.2d 676 (1938). The Code did not refer to sentencing, but prescribed certain procedures in connection with “rendering judgment” in criminal cases. References to “sentencing” and “pronouncing judgment” were held to have the same meaning in Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 285 Ky. 326, 147 S.W.2d 1029 (1941).
The Criminal Code, § 284, provided that the judgment of the court should affix the degree of punishment to be inflicted as found by the verdict of the jury or fixed by law. Section 285 required the presence of the defendant at the time that judgment was rendered against him in cases of felony and § 286 provided, “When the defendant appears for judgment, he must be informed by the court of the nature of the indictment, his plea and the verdict thereon, if any; and he must be asked if he has any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him.” The next section of the Criminal Code, number 287, then provided causes which a defendant might impose to prevent the rendition of judgment against him. These included “. . . any sufficient ground for a new trial, or for arrest of judgment; [or] . . . that he is insane.” Since Kentucky procedure required that he be asked at formal sentencing if he had any legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced, it would appear that the assistance of counsel would be required to advise the defendant if any of the causes set forth in Section 287 existed in his case.
In his brief, the respondent argues that the defendant would have had ample opportunity to present any reasons why judgment should not have been rendered in accordance with the verdict upon his motion for a new trial or for probation, quoting from McIntosh v. Commonwealth, Ky., 368 S.W.2d 331, 335 (1963). • In 1959 a person serving a life sentence in Kentucky was ineligible for probation pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes, § 439.020. On page 12 of his brief the respondent states, “A defendant could not make a motion for a new trial in a case where he has pleaded guilty.” Thus the two opportunities for presenting reasons why judgment should not be rendered in accordance with the verdict were not available to the petitioner Oliver at a time subsequent to formal sentencing, which increased the importance of counsel at sentencing in his case.
Section 174 of the Criminal Code in effect in 1959 provided that the court could permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted “[a]t any time before judgment.” Certainly the presence of counsel would be required for an intelligent determination of whether a change of plea should be undertaken. Cf. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 136, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967).
In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), the Supreme Court held that a defendant in a criminal case “. . . requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.” 287 U.S. at 69, 53 S.Ct. at 64. Even though under the 1959 Kentucky procedure the judge did not determine the degree of punishment, we view formal sentencing as more than a mere mihisteriai ceremony in light of the possible steps available to the defendant at that proceeding.
Although Kentucky continues to require that the jury fix the degree of punishment, new Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted in .1962 and the issue decided here has not been presented to this Court in a case tried under the new rules.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Upon remand an order will be entered granting the habeas corpus petition of Maxwell Oliver unless he is resentenced with either retained or appointed counsel present within 60 days from the entry of such order.

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