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:
Sidney C. SMITH v. S. W. HIXON, Warden, Atmore State Prison, Atmore, Alabama.
No. 16649.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 6, 1957.
Sidney C. Smith, in pro. per., Edward E. Cobbs, Rufus M. King, Montgomery, Ala., for appellant.
John M. Patterson, Atty. Gen., George Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before RIVES, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
RIVES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment sustaining a motion to dismiss a petition for habeas corpus. The facts are fully set forth in two able opinions of the district court, the first dismissing an earlier petition without prejudice, 142 F.Supp. 302, and the second giving the petitioner thirty days
“within which to amend his petition to show facts, if any there be, which would excuse his failure to pursue his appellate remedy from the judgment of conviction.” Smith v. Hixon, 149 F.Supp. 283, 289.
Pursuant to such permission, the petitioner amended by adding the following among other allegations:
“That at the time of the trial of the petitioner in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, and during the period of his appeal was being taken to the Court of Appeals of the State of Alabama, he was incarcerated in the County jail of Houston County at Dothan, Alabama.
“That your petitioner prepared and filed the appeal and then employed John C. Walters, Esq., an attorney at law of Troy, Alabama; that your petitioner believes that the said cause was argued orally by the said John C. Walters before the Court of Appeals, and the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
“That after the said John C. Walters has been employed and the opinion around the jail was that the case would be reversed it was made most convenient for your petitioner to leave the jail at Dothan, Alabama, by the officials of the jail; that a member of the Sheriff’s force told petitioner that he should leave that he would not be sought; that more than three months later, when petitioner was informed additional funds would be needed in event the case was affirmed, petitioner left the jail, which leaving was not report for twenty-four hours; that he forwith started in to contacting relatives who were interest in him to a view to obtaining the necessary funds with which to further the appeal if such was necessary.”
. The district court then entered a judgment dismissing the petition, from which judgment the present appeal is prosecuted.
After careful consideration we find ourselves in agreement with the district court. For the matters of which the appellant complains, his remedy by appeal from the judgment of conviction and from the denial of his motion for new trial was adequate. There was no valid excuse for his failure to prosecute such appeal on application for rehearing, and, if unsuccessful, by petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama, and further, if still unsuccessful, by petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. Assuming the truth of the charges, fantastic as they may seem, that the officials invited and aided appellant to escape and become a fugitive from justice, such highly reprehensible conduct would in nowise excuse the appellant’s conduct. If such charges be true, appellant is bound to have known that the officers were stepping beyond the scope of their duties and that under the law he had no right to escape.
The state having thus provided appellant with at least one effective remedy, it cannot be said that he was remediless in the state courts so as to authorize him to resort to habeas corpus in a federal court.
The judgment dismissing the petition is therefore
Affirmed.
. “Petitioner having filed, on the 21st day of March 1957, an amendment to his petition as amended, in which amendment o March 21, 1957, he attempts to excuse his failure to carry his appeal from the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, and
“It appearing from said petition that petitioner himself abandoned his state court remedy when he became an escapee and fugitive while the case was on appeal to the Alabama Court of Appeals from the judgment of conviction, it is
“Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition herein, as again amended, be and it hereby is dismissed on the merits.”
. See Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 90, 91, 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed. 543; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 118, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572; House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 46 et seq., 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739; Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 276, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61; Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 177, 178, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982; Jennings v. State of Illinois, 342 U.S. 104, 110, 72 S.Ct. 123, 96 L.Ed. 119; Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 485, 486, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 409.

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