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:
LU WOY HUNG v. HAFF, District Director of Immigration.
No. 7480.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1935.
Stephen M. White, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
H. H. McPike, U. S. Atty., Robert L. McWilliams, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Arthur J. Phelan, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges, and -ST. SURE, District Judge.
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the order of the District Court of the United States denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to the custody of appellee for deportation.
Appellant, an alien Chinese person, was admitted to the United States on March 24, 1917, as a minor son of a Chinese merchant. On November 23, 1921, appellant was convicted in the superior court of the state of California in and for Yuba county, of the crime of murder and sentenced by that court to imprisonment for a term of from seven years to life. On September 17, 1923, the Secretary of Labor issued his warrant for appellant’s deportation to China on the ground that he had been convicted in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his entry and had been sentenced therefor to imprisonment for a term of one year or more. Section 19, Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 889 (8 USCA § 155). Appellant was released from imprisonment on parole on December 8, 1932, and on August 18, 1933, he was taken into custody by immigration authorities for deportation under the warrant of deportation issued on September 17, 1923.
Section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, under which appellant was ordered deported, provides for the deportation of “ * * * except as hereinafter provided, any alien who, after February 5, 1917, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien to the United States. * * * Nor shall any alien convicted as aforesaid be deported until after the termination of his imprisonment.”
Appellant contends that, jurisdiction over his person having been first acquired by the state of California, jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the state until the termination of the term of imprisonment, which includes the period during which he is on parole from the state prison. Consequently, appellant argues that the federal government cannot divest the state of jurisdiction over him without the express consent of the state. Appellee concedes that, when a state has once obtained jurisdiction of a prisoner, the United States may not, interfere with the state’s jurisdiction, if the state objects. However, appellee contends that, unless the state objects, the federal government is free to take jurisdiction over a paroled prisoner of the state, claiming that no personal right of the prisoner is involved and that the prisoner himself may not object.
The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dealt with a similar case in U. S. ex rel. Feuer v. Day, 42 F.(2d) 127, 128, wherein the court said:
“While it is true that one on parole from a sentence in the state court is in the legal custody of the state, that custody, in the absence of protest by the state, does not forbid the national government from exercising its power and assuming jurisdiction in matters pertaining to immigration and deportation. Custody for the purpose of deportation is an incidental power of control under the immigration laws. The national government has the paramount authority in matters of immigration. We leave open the right of the state to complain, for that question is not here. The claim of unconstitutionality which the state might possibly make for interference with its custody of the alien is not a claim appellant may make. The alien has no interest in such a ruling and cannot raise the question. [People of New York ex rel.] Hatch v. Reardon (1907) 204 U. S. 152, 27 S. Ct. 188, 51 L. Ed. 415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Heald v. District of Columbia (1922) 259 U. S. 114, 42 S. Ct. 434, 66 L. Ed. 852; Oliver Iron [Mining] Co. v. Lord (1923) 262 U. S. 172, 43 S. Ct. 526, 67 L. Ed. 929.”
See, also, U. S. v. Marrin (D. C.) 227 F. 314; Hebert et al. v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316, 47 S. Ct. 103, 71 L. Ed. 270, 48 A. L. R. 1102; 16 C. J. 1166.
Since the state of California is not objecting, the fact appellant is on parole from a state prison presents no obstacle to the arrest of appellant under the warrant of deportation. Appellant relies on Grant v. Guernsey, 63 F.(2d) 163, wherein the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court discharging appellee from the custody of the state authorities. In that case appellee had been indicted in the District Court of the United States for Kansas for violation of the National Banking Act and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of three and one-half years, but the District Judge placed him on probation during the term of sentence, requiring the probation officer to report on his conduct every sixty days. Thereafter, during the period appellee was on probation, appellant instituted criminal proceedings against appellee in the state court, and he was ordered “to remain there, answer the charge of embezzlement, not depart without leave and abide the judgment of that court.” Appellee petitioned the District Court of the United States for Kansas for a writ of habeas corpus which was granted, and appellee was discharged. That case is distinguished from the case at bar because there the District Court of the United States which had prior jurisdiction over the appellee in the criminal case refused to relinquish custody of the petitioner to the state court. Moreover, in the case at bar appellant’s parole by the state board of prison directors was “with permission to go to China” and on September 14, 1933, appellee was advised by the state parole officer in San Francisco, Cal., as follows: “Would thank you to kindly notify me of the disposition of this case so that we may have a record of either his deportation or continued presence in the United States.” This amounts to the giving of express consent on the part of the state authorities to the arrest and deportation of appellant by the federal government.
Appellant also contends that section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. above quoted, expressly prohibits the immigration authorities from deporting the appellant until the termination of his imprisonment. Relying on the case of Nagle v. Lim Foon (C. C. A.) 48 F.(2d) 51, appellant claims that a mere parole is not a termination of imprisonment within the meaning of that section and consequently the immigration officers are acting without authority.
Section 3 of the Act of March 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1552, 8 USCA § 180b), provides as follows:
“An alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported under any provision of law until after the termination of the imprisonment. For the purposes of this section the imprisonment shall be considered as terminated upon the release of the alien from confinement, whether or not he is subject to rearrest or further confinement in respect of the same offense.”
Section 3 of the Act of March 4, 1929, supra, has been construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to authorize the deportation of an alien who is on parole from a state prison. U. S. ex rel. Feuer v. Day, supra; U. S. ex rel. Sollano v. Doak (D. C.) 5 F. Supp. 561, affirmed (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 1019. We agree with that construction. While it is true that this court decided the case of Nagle v. Lim Foon (C. C. A.) 48 F.(2d) 51, after the Act of March 4, 1929, was enacted, section 3 of that act was not therein relied upon by the government, nor was it called to our attention. In so far as that case holds that an alien on parole from-a state prison may not be deported, it is contrary to the provisions of section 3 of the Act of March 4, 1929, supra. See, also, U. S. ex rel. Siemen v. Day (D. C. N. Y.) 41 F.(2d) 853.
Order 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