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:
Bernard Young SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7173.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 25, 1963.
James E. Carpenter, Denver, Colo. (Bernard Young Smith filed a brief pro se), for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
PICKETT, Circuit Judge.
On July 28, 1954, the appellant, Smith, pleaded guilty to a five-count indictment, and was sentenced on each count to serve consecutive sentences. Counts two and three grew out of an occasion on which Smith was alleged to have broken and entered a United States Post Office with intent to steal property of the United States. The indictment, in separate counts, charged the offense of breaking and entering the post office with intent to commit larceny, and also the offense of stealing money or property of the United States. The fifth count charged a violation of Section 2(e) of the Federal Firearms Act, 52 Stat. 1250 (1938), 15 U.S.C. § 902(e), by alleging that Smith, having theretofore been convicted of a crime of violence, transported an automatic pistol in interstate commerce. In this proceeding, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Smith attacks the validity of the judgments and sentences on counts two and three, contending that only one crime was committed for which he could be sentenced. As to the fifth count, it is asserted that the conviction of a crime of violence occurred before the enactment of the Federal Firearms Act, and could not be relied upon in enforcing the statute, because of the Constitutional prohibition against the passage of any ex post facto law. The trial court denied Smith’s motion.
Section 2115 of Title 18, U.S.C.,. provides that whoever foreeably breaks into any post office, or building used in whole or in part as a post office, with intent to commit larceny or other depredation, shall be fined not more than $1000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Section 641 of Title 18, U.S.C., makes the embezzlement or theft of government property an offense. In Macomber v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 114, the defendants were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2115 and 18 U.S.C. § 1707, which is identical in principle to 18 U.S.C. § 641. We held, citing Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153, that “[e]ven though committed at the same time, the two offenses were distinct [and] were properly laid as separate counts in the indictment,” thus subjecting the defendants to the maximum sentence authorized by statute on each count. Smith relies upon Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, in which the Supreme Court held, in construing the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113, that the legislative history of that Act compelled a conclusion that Congress did not intend that a person could be punished for two separate crimes when a bank was entered and property was stolen therefrom. The decision refers to Morgan v. Devine, supra, and distinguishes it. Cf. Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct. 250, 71 L.Ed. 505.
There is no merit to the contention that Section 2(e) of the Federal Firearms Act is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law when applied to one who has been convicted of a crime of violence prior to the passage of the Act. Paragraph three of Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, prohibiting the passage of ex post facto laws, does not prevent the regulation by Congress of conduct, which it has the power to regulate, even though subjection to the regulation depends upon behavior occurring before the enactment of the statute. Cases v. United States, 1 Cir., 131 F.2d 916, cert. denied Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718.
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