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, Appellee, v. Robert MALOFSKY, Appellant.
No. 239, Docket 31388.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 14, 1967.
Decided Jan. 17, 1968.
Certiorari Denied April 8, 1968.
See 88 S.Ct. 1273.
Phylis Skloot Bamberger, New York City (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Pierre N. Leval, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, on the brief), for appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Robert Malofsky was tried before Judge Weinfeld and a jury on count one of an indictment charging him with the sale of 15.900 grams of heroin hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174. On April 21, 1967 he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
No question is raised by the appellant concerning the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial in support of his conviction. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial judge committed error when he denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that oply hearsay testimony was presented to the Grand Jury.
The Bureau of Narcotics Agent who purchased the heroin from the appellant and who had firsthand knowledge of the transaction did not testify before the Grand Jury, but an agent who had maintained surveillance both of the undercover agent who actually made the purchase, and the appellant at the time of the sale on June 30, 1965, testified as to his personal observations and to what the undercover agent told him about the sale. The presentation of such testimony before the Grand Jury is permissible and the indictment based thereon is valid, and does not, as the appellant claims, violate any of his Fifth Amendment rights. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). See United States v. Andrews, 381 F.2d 377, 378 (2 Cir. 1967); United States v. Heap, 345 F.2d 170, 171-172 (2 Cir. 1965). See also, United States v. Bitter, 374 F.2d 744, 748 (7 Cir. 1967); Smith v. United States, 236 F.2d 260, 268-269 (8 Cir. 1956).
While this court warned against the “excessive use of hearsay in the presentation of government cases to grand juries” unless “it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge,” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert, granted, 386 U.S. 940, 87 S.Ct. 975, 17 L.Ed.2d 872, cert, dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80, 88 S.Ct. 253, 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (Nov. 6,1967), the indictment in the present case was based on the testimony of a surveillant agent who clearly indicated what he testified to from his own knowledge and observation and what he learned from the participating agent. There is no affirmative duty to tell the grand jury in haec verba that it is listening to hearsay. United States v. Payton, 363 F.2d 996 (2 Cir.), cert, denied 385 U.S. 993, 87 S.Ct. 606, 17 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966).
The judgment of conviction 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