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. Ruben Morales ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 77-2053.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 1, 1977.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 13, 1978.
Michael J. Brown, P. C., Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
U. S. Atty. Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TRASK, WALLACE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.
Appellant Ruben Morales Robles (Robles) was indicted on May 9, 1974. The indictment charged him with knowingly and intentionally distributing 486 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
On August 14, 1974, the case was tried and the jury found Robles guilty as charged. On September 18, 1974, he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, a $3,000.00 fine, and a five-year term of probation. He appealed and was released on bond pending appeal.
On May 1, 1975, a panel of this court reversed and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the indictment. On October 16, 1975, however, the case was withdrawn from the panel and taken en banc by this court. On July 26, 1976, the en banc court reversed Robles’ conviction and remanded the case for retrial. United States v. Robles, 546 F.2d 798, 804 (9th Cir. 1976). Robles’ petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on February 22, 1977 (429 U.S. 1120, 97 S.Ct. 1155, 51 L.Ed.2d 571).
After remand the case proceeded to trial on April 5, 1977. Robles was again found guilty by the jury. On April 28, 1977, he was sentenced to the exact same sentence as was originally imposed after his first conviction. Robles appeals. We affirm.
I.
Robles first argues on this appeal that the three-year delay from the date of the offense to his retrial (after his successful appeal) denies him his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. This argument is without merit. Robles was afforded a speedy trial in August 1974, five months after the indictment was filed, which resulted in his conviction. That conviction was vacated by this court for reasons not related to this appeal. What happened was that defendant was afforded a speedy trial; his conviction was vacated on appeal; and he was retried and again convicted. These facts do not amount to a denial of his Sixth Amendment rights. Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 221, n. 4, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968); see generally Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), and United States v. Simmons, 536 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1976).
II.
Robles next argues that he was denied due process of law when the trial court imposed the same sentence on re-conviction as was originally imposed after his first conviction. During the appeal process Robles was released on bond. As a condition of his release, he was required, among other things, to obey all laws, remain within the jurisdiction unless court permission was granted to travel, obey all court orders, and keep his attorney posted as to his address and employment. Robles contends that these constraints on his freedom were “punishment” and that he should be given credit for this “time served” while on bond. We cannot agree. While 18 U.S.C. § 3568 does provide that persons sentenced shall be given credit for time served “in custody,” the time spent on bail or on bond pending appeal is not time served “in custody,” Sica v. United States, 454 F.2d 281, 282 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Peterson, 155 U.S. App.D.C. 368, 507 F.2d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Therefore, Robles is not entitled to have this time spent on bond pending appeal credited against his original sentence. We do note, however, that during the various proceedings against Robles he did spend five days actually in custody. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3568 he should be given credit for this time served and the government concedes this. We are confident that the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission, will discharge his statutory duties under 18 U.S.C. § 3568 and afford to Robles full credit for the five days spent in custody. In all respects the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. Also, in his opening brief, Robles argues that the trial court made “repeated erroneous rulings” on evidentiary matters which caused a “chilling effect” on his right to a fair trial and interfered with his right to assistance of counsel. Based on our reading of the trial record, we find this argument to be without merit.

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