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:
Robert L. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 79-3367
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 1980.
Robert L. Brown, pro se.
Jane LeCroy Brannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent-appellee.
Before BROWN, TJOFLAT and FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judges.
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), 5th Cir. R.18.
FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Early on the morning of September 1,1977, Robert Brown hit the cashier of a gasoline station on the head and knocked him to the floor. After robbing the station, Brown kicked the attendant, threatened to kill him and shot him twice. Brown was convicted of robbery in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. That conviction was affirmed, without opinion, by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Subsequent to the conviction for robbery, Brown was tried and convicted of assault with intent to murder. On appeal to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Brown argued that, because the charge of assault with intent to murder grew out of the same incident involved in his robbery conviction, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated at his second trial. The state court found that Brown had committed two separate and distinct crimes and affirmed his conviction. Brown v. State, 367 So.2d 557, 558 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, ex parte Brown, 367 So.2d 559 (Ala.1979).
Brown then petitioned for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, asserting the same double jeopardy claim. See Burton v. Oliver, 599 F.2d 49, 50 (5th Cir. 1979) (exhaustion of state remedies). The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation that the petition be denied.
In his pro se appeal to this Court, Brown makes several arguments, none of which has any merit. First, he pursues his double jeopardy claim. The test to determine whether successive prosecutions impermissibly involve the same offense under the double jeopardy clause was laid out by the Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).
[Wjhere the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.
This test is satisfied if each offense requires the proof of a fact that the other does not, even though there may be a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 n.17, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293 n.17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975).
In Alabama, there was no statutory definition of robbery at the time of the crime. See Ala.Code § 13-3-110 (1975). Common law required the State to prove three essential elements in order to prosecute the crime of robbery: a) felonious intent; b) force, by putting in fear, as a means of effectuating the intent, and c) by that means, a taking and carrying away of the property of another from his person or in his presence. Gissendaner v. State, 338 So.2d 1025, 1026 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 1028 (Ala.1976), quoting Tarver v. State, 53 Ala.App. 661, 303 So.2d 161, 162 (1974). An essential element of the crime of assault with intent to murder is the intent to take life, which is not an element of robbery. Brown v. State, 367 So.2d at 559; Sanders v. State, 354 So.2d 44 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 48 (Ala.1977). An essential element of the crime of robbery is the taking and carrying away of the property of another by force, which is not an element of assault with intent to murder. The Alabama crimes of robbery and assault with intent to murder are therefore two separate and distinct offenses.
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), cited by petitioner, does not apply here. In that case, the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.”
Whalen v. United States,--U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), is not applicable either. Unlike Whalen, this is not a case in which the distinguishing features of each offense are due to “so formal a difference in drafting” that the legislature responsible could scarcely have intended them to have any practical significance. -U.S. at-, 100 S.Ct. at 1439.
Petitioner’s other claims are also without merit. The principle of collateral estoppel does not bar the second prosecution, since, as Brown admits in brief, the evidence at his first prosecution established that he had a gun. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). Brown’s contention that the shooting occurred before the robbery was consummated rather than after-wards need not be considered, since the sufficiency of the evidence question was not raised by Brown in the district court. Att- well v. Nichols, 608 F.2d 228, 231 (5th Cir. 1979).
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