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. Bonifacio MUNIZ-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-1051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 11, 1988.
Robert R. Harris, El Paso, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Janet E. Bauerle, Asst. U.S. Attys., Helen M. Eversberg, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges, and NOWLIN, District Judge.
District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
NOWLIN, District Judge:
In this appeal from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and motion for judgment of acquittal.
We affirm.
I.
Factual Background
On the morning of September 27, 1987, Border Patrol Agent John McRae while traveling in an unmarked vehicle through Big Bend National Park to the San Vin-cente Crossing of the Rio Grande River spotted a large, flat-bed truck. The truck was traveling in the opposite direction away from the river and was being driven by an individual later identified as the Appellant. Agent McRae testified that this type of truck, although uncommon for the area, was commonly used for the illegal transportation of aliens across the United States-Mexico border. Agent McRae saw Appellant look at him, and then immediately turn his head back, looking toward the highway. Agent McRae noticed fresh mud on the tires, mud flaps, and lower parts of the truck. He reasoned that the truck probably became muddy at the San Vin-cente Crossing, an unmanned Class B port of entry, approximately twelve to fifteen miles away. Persons that enter the United States through this port of entry, according to Agent McRae’s testimony, must proceed to the nearest customs inspection station for that area which is located in Presidio, Texas.
Agent McRae turned around and began following the Appellant’s vehicle. He noticed debris and scratches on the truck which heightened his suspicion that the vehicle had transported aliens or contraband into the United States through the San Vincente Crossing. After observing the truck turn onto the main highway and begin traveling in a direction away from the Presidio customs station, Agent McRae ran a license check on the truck and then stopped the truck for inspection. He began questioning Appellant about the origin and destination of his travel. Appellant stated that he had taken a load of hay into Mexico and was returning to Fort Stockton, Texas by way of the San Vincente Crossing. Agent McRae and another backup agent inspected the truck more closely and discovered an unaccountable space of six to eight inches between the bottom and top sides of the truck bed. While he was inspecting the truck, Agent McRae noticed that Appellant was extremely nervous and hesitant about answering questions. The condition of the truck bed, Appellant’s demeanor, and the existence of the unaccountable space caused the agents to suspect that the truck had a false compartment which was probably being used to smuggle aliens or contraband.
After further questioning, the Agents then asked Appellant to drive the truck to a nearby Ranger district office for a more thorough inspection. At the office, Appellant again appeared extremely nervous. After removing certain portions of the truck bed, the Agents discovered a false compartment containing 239 pounds of marijuana.
Appellant presents two central issues on appeal:
(1) Whether the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress in which he claimed the border patrol agents made an illegal and warrantless stop and search of his flat-bed truck which led to the discovery of the marijuana in the hidden compartment of his vehicle; and
(2) Whether the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal in which he claimed that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that Appellant knowingly possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute. (Emphasis added).
For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court as to both issues and uphold Appellant’s conviction.
II.
Validity of the Stop and Search
Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Agent McRae violated his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping and searching his truck without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. We disagree.
The district court applied the reasonable suspicion analysis of United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) to the roving-patrol stop that led to the Appellant’s arrest. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances available to the Agents who stopped the Appellant was sufficient for the Agents to form a reasonable suspicion that the Appellant was engaged in criminal activity.
Appellant maintains on appeal that there was insufficient reasonable suspicion to support the stop and subsequent search. Reasonable suspicion is to be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, including the “collective knowledge” of all officers in assessing the facts. United States v. Kohler, 836 F.2d 885 (5th Cir.1988). The Supreme Court first articulated this test in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and applied it to the stop of a vehicle near the border in the Brignoni-Ponce decision. The Court noted in Brignoni-Ponce that any number of the following factors may be considered in deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle in the border area:
(1) the characteristics of the area;
(2) the proximity to the border;
(3) the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road;
(4) previous experience with criminal traffic;
(5) recent criminal activity in the area;
(6) the driver’s behavior;
(7) the type of vehicle; and
(8) the appearance of the vehicle.
Id., 95 S.Ct. at 2582.
In Kohler, a case involving similar circumstances, we found that “while any single factor in isolation would be insufficient to support the stop, we consider the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion under the ‘totality of the particular circumstances.’” Id., 836 F.2d at 888-889. Applying the factors listed above to the present case, we are persuaded that Agent McRae had a reasonable suspicion and therefore acted legally and appropriately when he stopped the Appellant. The terrain, Appellant’s conduct and direction of travel, the physical condition of the truck and its proximity to the border viewed in totality provided a constitutional basis for stopping Appellant’s vehicle. After detecting the existence of a hidden compartment, and realizing that Appellant had failed to proceed to the nearest customs station, the Agents acted properly in conducting a border search for the contraband. Kohler, 836 F.2d at 889.
III.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Appellant’s second contention is that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the Government failed to sustain its burden of proof. After reviewing the record, we find that the district court properly denied Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
The Government had to prove three elements in order to convict the Appellant for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841: (1) knowing; (2) possession of marijuana; (3) with intent to distribute. United States v. Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d 496, 500 (5th Cir.1986). Appellant does not deny that marijuana was found in the secret compartment of the truck; however, he does challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that establishes that he knowingly and intentionally possessed the marijuana.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and, deferring to the trier of facts’ reasonable inferences, will reverse the conviction only if a reasonable trier of fact could not find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc). Reviewing the evidence presented in this case and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that it was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find that Appellant committed a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court therefore properly denied Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
In conclusion, we find that, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the district court did not commit error in its conviction of Appellant for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court’s decision is therefore 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