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. Richard Dwight ABRAVAYA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-5559
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 2, 1980.
Donald L. Ferguson, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Jeffrey H. Kay, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HILL, GARZA and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.
GARZA, Circuit Judge:
By a four count indictment, the Appellant was charged with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1), importing a quantity of cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 and possession of a quantity of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury, unsolicited by either side, concerning plea bargain agreements of unindicted co-conspirators buttressed the credibility of those witnesses to the prejudice of the Appellant. We find no error and affirm.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), came predominantly from the testimony of five unindicted coconspirators. All five individuals had negotiated plea bargains with the government arising out of an earlier indictment regarding a number of cocaine transactions with Appellant, including the instant one. Each individual testified that he had been involved in cocaine transactions with the Ap-. pellant. Some of the witnesses testified to numerous transactions of purchasing cocaine from Appellant. The major transaction charged in the indictment involved an attempt to smuggle cocaine into the United States from Peru. The evidence showed that coconspirators Gary Leveque, James Wagner, Mark Freedman and Mark Mullaney all invested or assisted in the investment of money with the Appellant for a shipment of cocaine from Peru. Joseph Sheffler, another unindicted coconspirator, served as the courier who received the cocaine in Peru and attempted to bring it into the United States. He was arrested by United States Customs Officials at Miami International Airport.
The fact that Appellant’s accusers had all previously pled guilty was continually mentioned during the instant trial. Both counsel for the government and the defense referred to the plea bargains in opening statements, during direct and cross-examination of the coconspirators and in closing arguments.
During his instruction to the jury, the trial judge noted that the coconspirators in this case had entered into plea agreements with the government and that such plea bargains are lawful and proper and expressly provided for in the rules of the court. The judge, however, followed this with a cautionary instruction that evidence from such witnesses must be “received with caution and weighed with greater care.” The judge also instructed the jury that a defendant should not be convicted upon the unsupported testimony of an alleged accomplice unless that testimony is believed beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the judge stated that a plea of guilty by an alleged accomplice is not evidence in and of itself of the guilt of another person.
No objections were made to the trial judge’s instructions. Thus, this court may reverse only if plain error was present. See United States v. Fowler, 605 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1979). When a trial judge’s instructions to the jury have been challenged, this court must examine the entire charge and determine if, taken as a whole, the issues and the law were properly presented to the jury. See United States v. Arguelles, 594 F.2d 109, 112 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 124, 62 L.Ed.2d 81 (1979); United States v. Chandler, 586 F.2d 593, 606 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 927, 99 S.Ct. 1262, 59 L.Ed.2d 483 (1979).
In the present case, the trial judge commented on the existence of the plea bargains, which had been mentioned repeatedly throughout the trial by both sides. Such an instruction was merely a helpful explanation of facts brought to the jury’s attention by both government and defense counsel. Although that particular instruction had been unsolicited, both sides had read the court’s charges before they were given and had no objection. The trial judge then adequately and clearly cautioned the jury as to those witness’ testimony as well as to the fact that an admission of guilt by one person is not necessarily evidence of guilt as to another person. At the close of the court’s instructions, both sides were again given the opportunity to object and did not do so. Based upon an examination of the trial judge’s instructions regarding the plea bargains, taken as a whole, there was absolutely no error, plain or otherwise.
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