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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Kobert Paul PHILIPPS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 71-1513.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 17, 1972.
Decided April 12, 1972.
Robert Paul Philipps, pro se.
Harold O. Bullis, U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Paul Philipps was convicted of contempt of court for knowingly disobeying and resisting the lawful process, order and command of the court. He was fined $500.00 and given a suspended sentence of six months in custody. Phil-ipps contends that the conviction and sentence were unlawful and in violation of his constitutional rights.
Notwithstanding Philipps’ failure to comply with the rules of this Court in filing his appeal, we have examined the record in an effort to ascertain if any error was committed by the trial court. Our review convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court committed no error except that discussed below.
The trial court erred in imposing sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 401 provides that “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, * * * contempt of its authority * * (Emphasis added.) This section has been construed to prohibit the imposition of both imprisonment and fine. Board of Education v. York, 429 F.2d 66, 70 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Temple, 372 F.2d 795 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 961, 87 S.Ct. 1024, 18 L.Ed.2d 110 (1967); United States v. Schiffer, 351 F.2d 91, 96 (6th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 1914, 16 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1966), rehearing denied, 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 12, 17 L.Ed.2d 121 (1967); In re Osborne, 344 F.2d 611, 616 (9th Cir. 1965). The case must, therefore, be remanded.
The question arises whether, on remand, Philipps would be entitled to a jury trial under Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966). In Cheff, the Supreme Court ruled that “sentences exceeding six months for criminal contempt may not be imposed by federal courts absent a jury trial or waiver thereof.” 384 U.S. at 380, 86 S.Ct. at 1526. If there were any possibility that Philipps might be required, at some future time, to serve the six months’ sentence in addition to paying the $500.00 fine, we have little doubt that a jury trial on remand would be required under Cheff, Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), and Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969). However, the commitment in this ease reads:
“ * * -x- [T]he defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General * * * for imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months, commencing at Twelve o’clock noon of this date, said sentence is suspended and defendant is fined Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), payable to the United States of America, in installments of not less than $100.00 a month * *
While the wording of this sentence is uncommon and somewhat ambiguous, we construe it as nullifying, for all practical effect, the six months’ sentence. Thus, for Cheff purposes, this offense was treated as petty by the trial court, cf., Frank v. United States, supra, and Phil-ipps is not entitled to a jury trial.
The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to modify the sentence in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 401 and this opinion, by striking either the $500.00 fine or the six months’ suspended sentence.
. Following the decision in Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), the Supreme Court of Illinois, on remand, granted a new trial. This result appears to be inconsistent with United States v. R. L. Polk and Company, 438 F.2d 377 (6th Cir. 1971). We are persuaded that the Illinois Supreme Court’s action more properly reflects the intentions of the Supreme Court, particularly as expressed in Bloom and Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969).

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0