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:
Harold L. MOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15395.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 31, 1964.
Paul R. Moran (Court appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant, Harold L. Mock, in pro. per., on the brief.
Geraldine B. Ford, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for appellee, Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and O’SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sought vacation of a 20-year sentence for bank robbery, under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on grounds of insanity. The District Judge without hearing denied the motion on the basis of the files and records.
The records referred to included transcripts of the hearing on arraignment and the hearing on sentence. At the latter appellant was represented by experienced counsel. The District Judge conducted a careful examination of appellant and his counsel as to the truth and voluntary character of the plea of guilty.
The transcript of this hearing also indicates, however, that appellant asserted pertaining to the robbery, “I know at the time I did it I was sick,” and that he asked for “medical help,” and “psychiatric treatment.”
On appeal this court appointed counsel for appellant who argued his appeal.
On hearing counsel for appellant relied principally on his claim of insanity at the time of commission of the crime, and when he pleaded guilty thereto.
Prior to a recent interpretation of § 2255 procedures by the United States Supreme Court in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963), this court, on the facts in the instant case, would have affirmed without prejudice to appellant filing an application for a sanity examination under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4245, and subsequently renewing the motion to vacate sentence. Davis v. United States, 270 F.2d 177 (C.A.6 1959); Hoskins v. United States, 251 F.2d 51 (C.A.6 1957).
We now read Sanders, supra, (which was decided after the District Judge denied this motion) as suggesting that “any appropriate means for inquiry into the legality of the prisoner’s detention” (Sanders, supra 373 U.S. at 22, 83 S.Ct. 1081, 10 L.Ed.2d 148) be employed at the first motion brought under § 2255, unless the files and records “conclusively show” that petitioner is entitled to no relief.
What is obviously missing from this record is the result of a § 4245 examination. In order to procure such examination, we remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The District Attorney (as an officer of the court) should initiate the § 4245 examination.
The order denying motion to vacate .sentence is vacated and the case is remanded.
. In his order denying the instant motion, the District Judge referred to an examination of appellant in prison where “no indication of mental disease was found, but simply a propensity to fabricate.” Counsel for the government, on inquiry from this court as to the nature of the prison examination referred to by the District Judge, stated that this was the routine medical examination given on admission.

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