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. $26,660 IN U.S. CURRENCY (Vincent Caci, Claimant), Defendant-Appellant.
No. 198, Docket 85-6154.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 4, 1985.
Decided Nov. 21, 1985.
Michael H. Ranzenhofer, Buffalo, N.Y. (Mattar, D’Agostino, Kogler & Runfola, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Martin Littlefield, (Asst. U.S. Atty. for the W.D.N.Y., Buffalo N.Y., Salvatore R. Martoche, U.S. Atty. for the W.D.N.Y., Joseph M. Guerra, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, LUM-BARD and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Caci, appellant-claimant in this in rem forfeiture action, appeals from an order of Chief Judge John T. Curtin of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York ordering the forfeiture of $26,660 to the United States government. In 1983, Caci crossed the Canadian border into the United States carrying that amount in American currency. At the border, officers of the United States Customs Service requested that Caci complete a form that asked whether he was carrying over $5,000 in currency. He filled out the form, answering this question in the negative. Customs officers then searched Caci, discovered the $26,660 on his person and seized the money. Caci was indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for willfully making false statements in completing the Customs form. This Court affirmed the conviction by order, and the Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for certiorari. 751 F.2d 372, (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 594, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984). The government subsequently sought civil forfeiture of the currency pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(b) (now § 5317(c)). In the district court, Caci admitted that he had transported money from Canada into the United States. He attempted' to show, however, that at the time he entered the United States he had been unaware of his obligation to report the currency. Judge Curtin nevertheless granted the government summary judgment and ordered the currency forfeited. This appeal followed.
At the time Caci crossed the border, 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a) provided that any person who “knowingly” transports currency in excess of $5,000 into the United States must file a report with the Secretary of the Treasury, and 31 U.S.C. § 5317(b) provided for forfeiture of such currency when the person importing it failed to file the required report. The parties dispute whether awareness of the reporting requirement is an element of a civil forfeiture action brought under section 5317. Authority exists on both sides of this question, which is as yet undecided by this court. Compare United States v. $5393, 583 F.Supp. 1447 (E.D.N.Y.1984) (awareness not required) and United States v. $4,255,625.39, 528 F.Supp. 969 (S.D.Fla.1981) (same) with United States v. $24,900, 770 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir.1985) (awareness required). Cf. United States v. $6,700, 615 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1980) (noting in context of estate’s claim to currency carried into United States by administrator that “[t]he forfeiture provisions here are straightforward ... forfeiture is not tied to or dependent upon the wrongdoing of the owner of the monetary instruments.”)
We find it unnecessary to decide this question. Appellant has admitted that he knew he was carrying over $5,000 into the United States and that he read the Customs form. However, he claims that he erroneously, but in good faith, thought that the question put to him was whether he was carrying over $50,000. But that factual issue was litigated in his criminal trial. The closing argument of appellant’s counsel in that case, of which we may take judicial notice, was that Caci signed the form “believing that it said fifty thousand dollars.” By its verdict, the jury decided the factual issue against him. Appellant is estopped from relitigating the same question in this action. See Emich v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558, 568, 71 S.Ct. 408, 413, 95 L.Ed. 534 (1951); United States v. $31,679.59 Cash, 665 F.2d 903 (9th Cir.1982). Accordingly, the government has demonstrated every element needed for forfeiture of the currency under section 5317.
The judgment of the district court is 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