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:
Ernest Lee WADE, Appellant, v. A. L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee.
No. 82-1369.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 1982.
Decided March 31, 1982.
Ernest Lee Wade, pro se.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., and Dennis Mol-ock, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, HENLEY and McMIL-LIAN, Circuit Judges.
HENLEY, Circuit Judge.
This state habeas action first came before us on an application for certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 which was granted by order of a single judge of this court.
Upon examination of the file and records forwarded from the district court, it appearing that the exhaustion question presented does not require further consideration and no events of decisional significance having been shown to have transpired since final decision by the district court, we proceed to summary disposition.
In September, 1978 appellant Wade, a prisoner of the State of Arkansas, was convicted of escape and by an Arkansas state court of competent jurisdiction was fined and sentenced to serve a term of ten years in prison. State appeal in forma pauperis was denied.
In February, 1979 Wade filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas raising essentially the same questions he sought to raise by his latest petition. Those are: (1) denial of his right to appeal; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) conviction contrary to state law. In May, 1979 that petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies and petitioner’s application for certificate of probable cause was denied by this court July 5, 1979 for failure to exhaust state remedies. See Misc. Case No. 79-8125.
Thereafter, and on July 20, 1979, Wade filed in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Arkansas his petition seeking post-conviction relief, again raising the issues herein-above mentioned. The case here presented on appeal was initiated in the district court July 21, 1981. As of February 5, 1982 the district court found that there had been no ruling on Wade’s state petition.
Wade argued in the district court, and argues here, that his effort to exhaust state remedies is futile and that the federal courts should assume jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the passage of more than two years time in which the state petition was pending without judicial action, the district court again dismissed Wade’s habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. In doing so, that court recognized the delay but rested upon the representation that ruling in the state court awaited filing of a brief by counsel for Wade and that such brief would be filed within thirty days and counsel would expeditiously pursue the case through the remainder of the state process if necessary. The district court then-observed that once the state courts had rendered a final decision Wade could refile his habeas petition if necessary, and on February 5, 1982 proceeded to dismiss the petition.
While we understand the petitioner’s frustration with the slowness of the state court proceedings, we agree with the district court that this case is one in which the exhaustion requirement may not be completely excused. However, it has been much more than two years since the Lincoln County post-conviction proceeding was commenced. The reason for delay relied upon in February, 1982 is essentially the same as that given in August, 1981 when the court was assured that Wade’s appointed counsel had requested thirty days within which to bring the state proceeding to a point of finality.
In light of the slow and tortuous pace this litigation has taken, we are unwilling once again to see the petition dismissed. Cf. Seemiller v. Wyrick, 663 F.2d 805 (8th Cir. 1981). In the circumstances, rather than affirm the order of dismissal for failure to exhaust, we deem it appropriate to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further consideration. If within sixty days from and after this court’s mandate the state court has rendered a decision in favor of appellant, this case may be dismissed. But if after sixty days the state court has rendered no decision, the district court should proceed to consideration of the case on its merits. Should the state court render a decision unfavorable to appellant, then the district court should consider anew the question whether state appeal should be excused.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Let mandate issue forthwith.

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