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:
Dossie X. FAISON, Jr., Appellant, v. Robert F. ZAHRADNICK, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee.
No. 76-2446.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 7, 1977.
Decided Oct. 13, 1977.
William F. Krebs, Third Year Law Student (Michael E. Geltner, Appellate Litigation Clinic, Washington, D. C., and Aurora C. Jose, Third Year Law Student, on brief), for appellant.
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Anthony Troy, Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner convicted of robbery and abduction, sought habeas relief on the grounds that (1) he was unconstitutionally denied a transcript of his preliminary hearing, and that (2) identification testimony, in violation of constitutional standards, was admitted at trial. The District Court denied relief and we affirm.
We shall consider seriatim the two claims.
I
It was held in Roberts v. LaVallee (1967) 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41, that, if any criminal defendant, upon payment of a fee, can secure a transcript of his preliminary hearing, an indigent cannot under the equal protection clause be denied a like right to such a transcript merely because of his inability to pay the required fee. But the rule so stated presupposes that the testimony at the preliminary hearing has been officially transcribed and is available to the defendant upon the payment of the required fee. In Virginia, however, the testimony at a preliminary hearing is transcribed only if the judge directs that it be transcribed and “signed by the witnesses.” If the judge directs that the testimony be transcribed and “signed by the witnesses,” then, in that case Roberts would require that an indigent be furnished a transcript of such hearing without the payment of any fee. Where, on the other hand, the judge did not order the testimony to be “transcribed” and “signed by the witnesses” at the preliminary hearing, there is no official transcript available to anyone, with or without a fee, whether the defendant be affluent or an indigent; and in those circumstances, failure to furnish a transcript of the preliminary hearing to an indigent will not be a violation of the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such was the situation here. Whether the petitioner was indigent or rich, he could not secure a transcript of that hearing. The trial court did not therefore commit constitutional error in refusing on equal protection grounds to order that the petitioner be furnished a transcript of his preliminary hearing without payment of a fee.
II
The defendant complains of the admission of his identification by the witness White. The latter was employed as a clerk in the drug store which was robbed. He was held at gunpoint during the robbery and was forced by the robbers to leave the drug store and accompany them for some time afterwards. The taller of the robbers was unmasked during the robbery and was later identified by White as Johnson; the shorter, later identified by White as the defendant Faison, had a light mask on during the robbery but he removed it after he left the drug store. After the robbers had fled for some distance through the woods and had arrived at an open area, they released White. The robbery occurred about 9:25 in the evening. Later in the evening the police authorities arrested the defendant and Johnson and brought them to the station house. About 1:30 in the morning following, White was brought to the station and made a visual and voice identification of the defendant and Johnson as the robbers. This is the identification which the defendant challenges in his habeas petition.
We held in Stanley v. Cox (4th Cir. 1973) 486 F.2d 48 at 50-1, cert. denied 416 U.S. 958, 94 S.Ct. 1975, 40 L.Ed.2d 309 (1974) that a pre-trial show-up identification, such as that here, was not subject to any per se rule of invalidity but that its validity was to be determined on the basis of its reliability as established by the “totality of circumstances.” That decision was approved by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) 432 U.S. 98, at p. 110, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140. Both in Manson and Stanley, the factors to be considered in determining reliability were stated. One was the “time between the crime and the confrontation.” In Manson, the delay was two days; in this case, the delay was but four hours. Another factor was “the opportunity to view.” It is true that, while in the drug store during the robbery, the defendant had concealed his face with a mask, White did observe his build, his attire, and other physical characteristics of the defendant. He noted the dark shoes the defendant had on, the black gloves and the light pants he wore, and the light hosiery mask he wore. The defendant spoke to him during the robbery and the two robbers engaged in conversation. When the robbers forced White to accompany them after the robbery, they took him to a wooded area. When they reached the wooded area, the masked robber took off his mask and threw it away. The three of them then proceeded through the woods for some five to eight minutes until they reached a clearing near a road. As they approached the road, a car was seen and White was forced to get down and to be quiet until it passed. During these times, White had ample opportunity to observe the faces of the two robbers as the three of them were proceeding through the woods and to note the voices of the two robbers as they talked. It is implausible to assume that during all the time the witness was held by the two robbers, he had no opportunity to observe closely their appearance. It was night but there were assuredly periods when their faces were clearly mirrored before him, especially since there were open areas in the woods they were traversing. That he was attentive — one of the other factors to be considered — is evidenced by his cataloguing of the attire and physical characteristics of the defendant. Moreover, there was never any uncertainty or hesitation in White’s identification of the defendant and his companion. This is another factor, which under Manson, was to be considered.
The defendant would, however, find the reliability of the witness’ identification fatally flawed by his inability some months later to identify the defendant in a line-up. But this argument overlooks the changes which the defendant in the meantime had made in his appearance. On the night of the robbery the defendant had hair coming down on both sides of his mouth and under his lip. When seen in the line-up, he was clean-shaven, had bleached his hair a “reddish” color and had begun to part his hair in the middle. The failure to identify the defendant after those significant changes in his appearance cannot weaken the reliability of a prompt show-up identification made within a few hours after the robbery when the witness had the opportunities that White had to observe the robbers and to listen to their voices and when his recollection of their faces was vivid in his mind. We find no error in the admission of the identification testimony of White.
The State argues, too, that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. There can be little dispute that the case against the defendant was a particularly strong one. We, however, find no necessity to consider this argument since we think it abundantly clear that the show-up identification was admissible.
Ill
The order of the District Court dismissing the petition for habeas relief is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
. In Adams v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 278, 294, n. 8, 92 S.Ct. 916, 925, 31 L.Ed.2d 202, Justice Douglas, in his dissent, summarized Roberts as holding “that the State must provide an indigent with a preliminary hearing transcript in every circumstance in which the more affluent could attain one.”
In Britt v. North Carolina (1971) 404 U.S. 226, 227, 92 S.Ct. 431, 433, 30 L.Ed.2d 400, the Court stated that Roberts and all the other related cases “establish the principle that the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense on appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners.” (Italics added)
As is seen, both statements condition the right of an indigent to a transcript upon the available “for a price” to other defendants o such a transcript.
. See Sharbor v. Gathright (W.D.Va.1969) 295 F.Supp. 386.
. Many cases, particularly in the State courts, have addressed the right of an indigent to a transcript of his preliminary hearing. The result in those cases has turned basically on whether under the State law a transcript was available upon the payment of a fee. If it was not, a denial of such a transcript was not viola-tive of the equal protection clause; conversely, it was. The first line of authorities is well illustrated by both the federal and state decisions dealing with Massachusetts practice, which corresponds roughly with that of Virginia. See Britt v. McKenney (1st Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 44, 46, and Commonwealth v. Britt (1972) 362 Mass. 325, 285 N.E.2d 780, 782-3. In the latter case, Justice Braucher, after observing that Massachusetts does not require that the testimony at a preliminary (or probable cause) hearing be transcribed, said:
“ * * * The poor are not entitled to better protection of the laws than the rich. Hence no question is presented as to denial of equal protection of the laws by reason of the statute.”
To the same effect are: State v. Harris (1975) 27 N.C.App. 15, 217 S.E.2d 729, 731, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial constitutional question, 288 N.C. 512, 219 S.E.2d 347; Williams v. Jasper (1971) 287 Ala. 237, 250 So.2d 699, 701, cert. denied 250 So.2d 701; McHale v. State (Miss.1973) 284 So.2d 42, 44; State v. Champ (Mo.1972) 477 S.W.2d 81, 83.
On the other hand, if, either by statute or court rule, the testimony at the preliminary hearing must be transcribed and is available on payment of a fee — the situation in Roberts —the authorities sustain the indigent’s right to a transcript. People v. Montgomery (1966) 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730; State v. Lewis (Iowa 1974) 215 N.W.2d 293; State v. Apodaca (1969) 80 N.M. 244, 453 P.2d 764; Hawkins v. State (Okl.Cr.App.1971) 486 P.2d 743. See, also, Gardner v. United States (1969) 132 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 407 F.2d 1266, 1268, cert. denied 395 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1757, 23 L.Ed.2d 225 (1969), and Hunter v. District Court in & For Twentieth J.D., 184 Col. 238, 519 P.2d 941, both of which reached the same result on the basis of a court rule issued “under the supervisory power” of the Court over procedures in criminal actions. The theory on which all these cases proceed was stated by the Court in Hawkins, supra, 486 P.2d at 744:
“The purpose of the rule enunciated in Waters v. State [Okl.Cr., 454 P.2d 325] and Roberts v. LaVallee, * * * was to accord an indigent the same right to a transcript of the testimony taken at preliminary examination as that accorded to persons able to pay for such transcripts, * *
For authority that failure to transcribe a preliminary hearing is not a constitutional violation, see, Britt v. McKenney, supra, 529 F.2d at 47.

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