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 Fredrick HERRING, Appellant, v. Felix RODRIGUEZ, Acting Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Appellee.
No. 9049.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 8, 1967.
Claude S. Sena, Santa Fe, N. M., for appellant.
L. D. Harris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Albuquerque, N. M. (Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, N. M., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.
SETH, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was convicted of armed robbery on December 2, 1955, in the District Court of Socorro County, New Mexico, and sentenced to the New Mexico State Penitentiary, where he is now an inmate. No appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence of the state trial court.
Appellant’s petition for a writ of ha-beas corpus in the United States District Court alleges a denial of his constitutional rights in the state trial. Counsel was appointed to represent him in the United States District Court, pretrial conference was held, and appellant’s habeas corpus petition was there dismissed, without prejudice, because available state remedies had not been exhausted, and this appeal followed. A
From the somewhat incomplete record on appeal, it appears that appellant, in March 1965, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the state court that imposed sentence, and it appears that no action was taken on the petition by the state trial court. Some time after March 1965 the appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, in which county the state penitentiary is situated. The habeas corpus petition in the state district court was apparently denied; an appeal was taken, but in March 1966 the New Mexico Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with New Mexico’s new post-conviction procedure under Rule 93 of the New Mexico Supreme Court. This rule was applicable to all actions seeking post-conviction relief after December 31, 1965. N.M.Stat.Ann. § 21-1-1(93) (1966 Interim Supp.).
Rule 93 of the New Mexico Supreme Court is comparable to the federal statute which sets forth the procedure for collateral attack on federal sentences. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Like its federal counterpart, rule 93 requires that petitions seeking post-conviction relief be addressed to the sentencing court, and that habeas corpus petitions will not be entertained when the petitioner has failed to utilize rule 93, unless it appears that the procedure under rule 93 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the petitioner’s detention. Rule 93 also provides for appeal from the state trial court’s order “as from a final judgment in the manner and within the time provided in Supreme Court Rule 5.”
After the New Mexico Supreme Court had dismissed the state habeas corpus appeal for failure to comply with rule 93, the appellant filed a rule 93 petition in the state trial court in April 1966, the same month in which the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, here involved, was filed in the United States District Court.
On June 30, 1966, the United States District Judge held a pretrial conference in the habeas corpus proceedings at which the appellant was represented by appointed counsel. The transcript of the pretrial conference shows that the district judge was advised of the appellant’s rule 93 petition then pending in the state trial court, and that the district judge was reluctant to proceed until the state courts had disposed of the rule 93 petition, filed some two months before. The United States District Court therefore entered an order dismissing the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice, finding that the appellant “has failed to exhaust his available state remedies and there has been no incapacity or interference preventing him from using these remedies.”
The appellant then indicated his desire to appeal the order of dismissal on the ground that the state trial court had not entered an order disposing of the petition for a writ of error coram no-bis filed some sixteen months before, thus suggesting that further attempts to obtain post-conviction relief under rule 93 were futile because of delays encountered in the state trial court.
During argument before this court in December 1966, counsel advised that the state trial court had entered an order denying the appellant’s petition under rule 93, which had been filed in the same month as the habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court. The state trial court’s order denying relief under rule 93 is not part of the record on appeal, nor do we know the extent and nature of the proceedings in the state trial court. The record does not disclose whether the appellant has appealed or can now appeal from denial of his rule 93 petition to the New Mexico Supreme Court, as provided by the rule.
There is nothing whatever in the record upon which we might conclude that the remedy provided by rule 93 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the appellant’s detention under the constitutional grounds asserted in the appellant’s petition to the United States District Court. The appellant had not exhausted his available state remedies when the court below dismissed his habeas corpus petition, and dismissal, without prejudice, was not erroneous. Robinson v. Cox, No. 8322, 10th Cir., January 27, 1966; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
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