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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph Thomas SADLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-1571.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 20, 1972.
Douglas T. Francis, Albuquerque, N. M., for defendant-appellant.
Richard J. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., on the brief), Albuquerque, N. M., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HILL, SETH and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
HILL, Circuit Judge.
Sadler appeals his conviction by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312, which prohibits the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. In this appeal, appellant assaults the initial arrest as illegal, asserts error in the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence, and questions the sufficiency of prosecution evidence to establish his knowledge of the felonious taking of the automobile.
On the afternoon of October 15, 1971, a New Mexico State Police patrolman stopped the car in which appellant was a passenger for a routine driver’s license and registration check. The car bore Colorado dealer license plates. The patrolman asked the driver, appellant's companion Shope, for his driver’s license and the vehicle registration. Shope produced his driver’s license from the trunk, which he opened with a screwdriver. While the trunk was open, the patrolman noticed a spare tire with unique markings which indicated it belonged to a national car rental agency. The patrolman again requested the registration. Registration for the Colorado dealer license plates was obtained from Sadler. Sadler indicated the car was owned by Golden Eagle Manufacturing Company in Colorado, that he was an employee of that company, and that he was authorized to have the vehicle.
The patrolman then asked permission to look through the car for further proof of ownership. Permission was given and the patrolman searched the automobile. Search of the glove compartment disclosed an oil company credit card issued to a John C. Moore. In response to the patrolman’s inquiry as to possible verification of the automobile’s ownership, Sadler responded that a telephone call to Golden Eagle Manufacturing Company would establish this. Sad-ler and Shope then accompanied the patrolman to Tucumcari where attempts to contact the company were unsuccessful. A call was also placed to the National Crime Information Center concerning the possible theft of the car, but there was no report that the car was stolen.
On the basis of the uniquely marked spare tire, the patrolman telephoned the car rental agency and learned the car had been reported stolen. Sadler and Shope were then placed under arrest and were advised of their rights. Sadler refused to sign the waiver of rights form. A traffic citation was issued for improper use of registration plates, bond was posted, and they were released.
On the next day, Sadler and Shope were arrested by the F.B.I. Sadler was again informed of his rights. He stated he understood and was willing to be interviewed without an attorney, but declined signing the waiver of rights form. Upon being questioned about the car, he said he and Shope had won approximately $1450 from a J. C. Moore in a card game in Washington, D. C., and that Moore, being unable to pay the debt, gave them the car as collateral. Subsequent investigation disclosed that Moore was unknown at the gaming establishment where the gambling debt was allegedly incurred, and that rarely, if ever, did the card games result in more than $5 or $10 changing hands. Appellant additionally stated that he had substituted the Colorado dealer plates to secure insurance coverage under the dealer plates. Sadler also testified at trial that the license plate had been substituted to thwart any attempt by the disgruntled loser of the card game to wipe out his debt and recover his car by reporting his car as stolen.
At trial, testimony was elicited and evidence presented showing that John C. Moore had lost his card case containing his credit cards and other identificatory items in mid-August, 1970; that the automobile had been rented at an eastern United States air terminal on August 27, 1970, using an American Express credit card issued to John C. Moore; and that the two clerks on duty at the time both recognized Sadler as one of the men who rented the car.
Appellant first asserts the initial stopping by the state patrolman was illegal due to lack of probable cause to investigate. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the patrolman testified he made the initial stop on the basis of the Colorado dealer plates which were displayed, together with the visible damage to the trunk lid as though it had been pried open. Detention for a routine automobile registration check is not, per se, illegal. Additionally, the patrolman’s testimony indicated there was some basis for suspicion which would justify stopping the automobile.
Appellant next argues the incriminating evidence which was subsequently produced was inadmissible due to the failure to advise him promptly of his Miranda rights. Sadler asserts this warning should have been given immediately upon arousal of suspicion. This, he asserts, would have staved off his being lulled into a false sense of security and would have put him on his guard. “The general ‘on the scene’ questioning of citizens by police officers in the fact-finding stage of an investigation of a possible crime ... is not condemned by the rule of Miranda v. Arizona . . . .” United States v. Quinones-Gonzalez, 452 F.2d 964, 965 (10th Cir. 1971). The fact of crime, in this case, had not been established at the time Sadler contends the warning should have been given. When the fact of crime was established, the Miranda safeguard warning was given immediately.
Sadler next asserts the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish the essential element of his knowledge of the felonious taking. Knowledge of felonious taking, even in the face of what appellant contends is a satisfactory explanation, may be inferred by the jury from the evidence presented, and will be upheld unless that determination is totally devoid of evidentiary support. Neal v. United States, 438 F.2d 301 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 979, 91 S.Ct. 1212, 28 L.Ed.2d 331.
Affirmed.
. See United States v. Hackett, 437 F.2d 420 (10th Cir. 1971).
. [A] brief detention based on an officer’s reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot is constitutionally permissible for the purposes of a limited inquiry. . . . United States v. Sanchez, 450 F.2d 525, 528 (10th Cir. 1971). See also United States v. Fallon, 457 F.2d 15 (10th Cir. 1972).
. See United States v. Fallon, 15 F.2d 457 (10th Cir. 1972).

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