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:
John Dee CHAPIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7904.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
Feb. 12, 1965.
Rehearing Denied March 24, 1965.
James L. Billinger, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Thomas E. Joyce, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges, and DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal follows denial of relief by the trial court of appellant's motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The factual background of the case is undisputed and uncomplicated: Appellant, after being advised by the court that the maximum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Dyer Act) was five years, entered a plea of guilty to a charge made under such Act. Thereafter and over his protest he was sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq., to an indeterminate sentence carrying a potential maximum of six years. The single issue is whether the sentence imposed is valid. A conflict among the circuits appears to exist upon the question.
The Fifth Circuit in Cunningham v. United States, 256 F.2d 467, and again in Rawls v. United States, 330 F.2d 777, has denied post-conviction relief indicating the existence of the defendant’s tacit consent to receiving the remedial benefits of guidance under the Youth Corrections Act in contrast to penal institution confinement. The Fourth Circuit termed such reasoning “too narrow and formalistic,” Pilkington v. United States, 315 F.2d 204, 208, and concluded that a factual hearing was necessary to determine whether the trial court’s failure to pre-inform the defendant of potential sentence under the Act had resulted in an involuntary plea. See also Carter v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 306 F.2d 283. Still another view is entertained in the First Circuit. That court indicates the issue “lies deeper” and holds that when a defendant is informed as to a maximum sentence incarceration beyond such period is impermissible. Workman v. United States, 1st Cir., 337 F.2d 226.
^ In the ease at bar the trial court denied relief to appellant, as a matter of law and without a hearing after noting that the views of this Court as expressed in Rogers v. United States, 10 Cir., 326 F.2d 56, relative to the general purposes of the Youth Corrections Act are in accord with a comparable constitutional analysis of the Act in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Cunningham v. United States, supra. We do not consider our decision in Rogers to be apposite to the issue nor are we persuaded of the correctness of Cunningham to the extent it denies the availability of post-conviction relief under these circumstances. To the contrary, we hold that when, as here, a defendant is sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act to a term potentially longer in duration than the maximum term represented to the defendant prior to plea, such sentence is invalid and must be vacated upon motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But our holding is so limited. We do not hold that appellant’s plea was involuntary as a matter of law; nor, that imposition of sentence under the Act is invalid when the maximum statutory sentence is not potentially exceeded even though the Court did not mention the Corrections Act; nor, that the incorrect pronouncement of a maximum term forever prohibits the imposition of a greater sentence. We decide only the narrow issue presented by appellant’s motion to vacate sentence.
The case is remanded with directions to vacate the sentence and for such further proceedings as may be required by law or in the interest of justice.

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