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:
Maitland E. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 23858.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 1967.
Jack Bryant, Abilene, Tex., for appellant.
William O. Callaway, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying petitioner relief on his § 2255 motion seeking to vacate and correct sentences imposed upon him in the United States District Court on June 12, 1959. This is the seventh post-conviction motion filed by petitioner. All previous motions were unsuccessful, the fourth being ruled upon by this Court. Brown v. United States, 5th Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 404.
The only issue presented by this appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that the pronouncement of sentence in open court by the original trial court was sufficient to effectuate the court’s intent to make the sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently. At the original trial, petitioner pled guilty to three separate charges: (1) A two-count indictment charging forgery of postal money orders in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500; (b) a one-count indictment charging bail jumping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146; and (c) an information charging the interstate transportation of an altered American Express money order in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. At the time of sentencing, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: Well, I am going to have to impose a sentence here to prevent you from forging, altering checks; so in Cause No. 2012, which is the case for two counts of falsely and fraudulently counterfeiting postal money orders, I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General for five years, on both counts generally. In Cause No. 2009, bail jumping, I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General for one year, and in Cause No. 2010, charging the violation of transportation in interstate commerce of an altered American Express Company Money Order, I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General for six years.
MR. BINION [the prosecuting attorney] : Your Honor, may I inquire about the sentences as to—
THE COURT: He is sentenced independently, separately, and to be served consecutively.
Petitioner has had the benefit of able and experienced court-appointed counsel, and his case has been advanced with unusual diligence and vigor. Despite the commendable efforts of counsel, however, we feel that disposition of the appeal in a manner contrary to petitioner’s position is clearly dictated by this Court’s opinion in Henley v. Heritage, 5th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 847. Dealing there with a factual situation substantially identical to thát at bar, this Court concluded:
* * * that the clear meaning of the [court’s oral pronouncement of sentence] * * * is that the sequence of sentences is to follow the order in which the sentences were announced, and that consequently, the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
337 F.2d at 848. Clearly this language, and the entire reasoning of the Henley case, applies equally well in the instant controversy. The sentencing pronouneement clearly reveals the trial court’s intent that the three sentences were to run consecutively in the order announced; and, in light of the holding in Henley, it was legally sufficient to implement that intent. The judgment of the district court denying petitioner’s motion is therefore affirmed.
. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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