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 Herman FRAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6855.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
March 5, 1962.
Richard P. Cullen, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Robert M. Green, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
An indictment was returned in the United States Court for Kansas charging Bernard H. Frand and Byron Leslie Mc-Cabe with the offense of transporting in interstate commerce a stolen automobile knowing it to have been stolen. Both of the accused were found guilty and each was sentenced to imprisonment. No appeal was taken. Frand filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the judgment and sentence imposed upon him. The motion was denied without a hearing. On appeal, the order denying the motion was reversed and the proceeding was remanded with directions to grant a hearing at which Frand might appear and testify. Frand v. United States, 10 Cir., 289 F.2d 693. The hearing thus ordered was had, at which Frand was present but did not testify and did not adduce any evidence.. The record indicates that a transcript of the proceedings at the trial of the criminal case was before the court and it is now part of the record on appeal. The motion was denied, and the proceeding is here on appeal from the order of denial.
The single attack upon the order denying the motion is that Frand was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at the trial of the criminal case. It is argued that the court appointed attorney who represented Frand and McCabe at the trial of the criminal case was so incompetent that Frand was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. This is not an appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed upon Frand in which conventional errors occurring during the trial would be open to review. It is an attack upon the judgment and sentence by motion under § 2255. The statute provides in express language that the grounds of attack which may be presented by motion under its terms are that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or that the sentence is otherwise open to collateral attack. Lack of effective assistance of counsel in the trial of a criminal case constitutes impingement upon a constitutional right of the accused and lays the judgment and sentence open to collateral attack by motion under the statute. But the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel does not vest in the accused the right to the services of an attorney who meets any specified aptitude test in point of professional skill. And common mistakes of judgment on the part of counsel, common mistakes of strategy, common mistakes of trial tactics, or common errors of policy in the course of a criminal case do not constitute grounds for collateral attack upon the judgment and sentence by motion under the statute. It is instances in which resulting from the substandard level of the services of the attorney the trial becomes mockery and farcical that the judgment is open to collateral attack on the ground that the accused was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Mitchell v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 259 F.2d 787, certiorari denied, 358 U.S. 850, 79 S.Ct. 81, 3 L.Ed.2d 86; Black v. United States, 9 Cir., 269 F.2d 38, certiorari denied, 361 U.S. 938, 80 S.Ct. 379, 4 L.Ed.2d 357.
The government introduced four witnesses. One was not cross examined. But it does not appear that cross examination would have been helpful to Frand and McCabe. Cross examination of the other witnesses was brief. But the record fails to indicate that more extended cross examination would have advantaged Frand and McCabe. No objection was made to certain evidence which was hearsay in character. But laying such evidence entirely aside, a prima facie case was clearly made against both of the accused. At the outset of his argument to the jury, the attorney stated that it was his first jury trial. But the quality of legal services rendered to an accused in a criminal case is not always measured by previous experience or the lack of it. The accused both testified at length in their own behalf. They made certain admissions and offered certain explanations. They admitted obtaining possession of the automobile in Arizona, and explained. They admitted driving the automobile from Arizona to Hutchinson, Kansas, and explained. They admitted painting the car after they arrived in Hutchinson with it, and explained. They admitted giving fictitious names when interviewed by officers, and explained. Manifestly, the jury did not credit their explanations. We are not persuaded that as the result of incompetence of the attorney the trial amounted to mockery or became farcical. And therefore the judgment and sentence was not open to collateral attack by motion under section 2255, supra. Mitchell v. United States, supra.
The order denying the motion 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