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. Robert S. FALCONE, Sandra S. Falcone, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 89-5718.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 20, 1992.
G.H. Terando, Poplar Bluff, Mo., for R. Falcone.
Kenneth M. Swartz, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for S. Falcone.
Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Dawn Bowen, Linda C. Hertz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for U.S.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAYITCH, HATCHETT, EDMONSON, COX, BIRCH, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges .
Honorable R. Lanier Anderson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
PER CURIAM:
We took this case en banc to reconsider our holding in United States v. Hope, 861 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir.1988). In Hope, we held that in order for the government to establish that a defendant conspired to commit an “offense against the United States” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1988), the prosecution must allege and prove that the defendant conspired to injure the United States or one of its agencies. In the case at hand, the Government charged, and proved, that the defendants conspired to commit the following offenses against the United States: the violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1344(a)(2), and 2113 (1988). Following Hope’s holding, the panel reversed the defendants’ convictions. United States v. Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir.), vacated, reh’g en banc granted, 939 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir.1991). The panel, however, did so reluctantly. The panel felt the conspiracy convictions should be upheld — that Hope had been wrongly decided — and suggested that the case be reheard en banc. See Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528, 1548 (11th Cir.) (Tjoflat, C.J., specially concurring, joined by Powell, Assoc. Justice, and Kravitch, J.).
We agree with the panel’s appraisal of Hope and, for the reasons set forth in Chief Judge Tjoflat’s special concurrence, overrule Hope’s holding. See id. at 1548-51. Specifically, we hold that in establishing a conspiracy “to commit any offense against the United States,” the government need not allege or prove that the United States or an agency thereof was an intended victim of the conspiracy.
Accordingly, the appellants’ convictions under section 371 are reinstated and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
. See United States v. Falcone, 939 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir.1991).
. 18 U.S.C. § 371 states, in pertinent part:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
. 18 U.S.C. § 1014 states, in pertinent part:
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report ... for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of ... any bank the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ... upon any application, advance, discount, purchase, purchase agreement, repurchase agreement, commitment, or loan, or any change or extension of any of the same, by renewal, deferment of action or otherwise, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of security therefor, shall be fined not more than $5000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
. The version of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 that was in effect when the appellants were indicted states, in pertinent part:
fa) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a federally chartered or insured financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by or under the custody or control of a federally chartered or insured financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In 1989, Congress amended section 1344, in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Pub.L. No. 101-73, Title IX, § 961(k), 103 Stat. 183, 500..
.18 U.S.C. § 2113 states, in pertinent part:
Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank ... with intent to commit in such bank ... any felony affecting such bank ... and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny—
Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or motley ... of value exceeding $100 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
. We do not, however, disturb the panel’s disposition of appellant’s challenges to his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344(a)(2) (1988) (counts V, VI, VII, VIII, & IX of the indictment); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(b) (1988) (counts X & XI of the indictment); and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344(a)(2), 2113(a) (1988) (counts XII & XIII of the indictment). See Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528, 1534-35, 1548 (11th Cir.), vacated, reh’g en banc granted, 939 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir.1991). With respect to those convictions, the panel’s opinion and judgment, which were vacated when we voted the case en banc, are reinstated.

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