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:
Charles Wesley JOHNSON, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.
No. 6655.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 18, 1961.
Stephen A. Hellerstein, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
George T. Van Bebber, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges, and KERR, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of Kansas denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, discharging the writ and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the Warden. Seeking to be released from the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, appellant petitioned for habeas corpus on the ground that an error in the computation of good time due him resulted in the advancement of the date of his reconditional release from November 6, 1960, to September 24, 1961.
On January 16, 1952, appellant commenced serving a nine year sentence, amounting to 3,285 days. After serving 2,139 days he was credited with 864 days of statutory good time and 282 days of industrial good time and was conditionally released on November 26,1958. At the time of his release there remained 1,146 days of the nine year sentence not served by appellant. On June 3, 1959, he was arrested as a conditional release violator and he is now serving out the balance of his nine year term. Upon the rearrest of appellant, the record clerk noted that appellant owed only 844 days as a violator and gave the re-conditional release date as April 1, 1961. On December 1, 1959, the prison officials recomputed appellant’s good time, showed 1,146 days as the total sentence for the conditional release violation, allowed 301 days good time, and determined September 24, 1961, as the proper reconditional release date.
The District Court found that such recomputation by the prison officials on December 1, 1959, was not in error; that due to his conditional release violation appellant is required to serve the balance of his nine year term; and that 1,146 days remained to be served by appellant, less good time earned during his violation term.
Appellant buttresses his appeal to this court with the contention that the 1959 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 4161 has been applied retroactively. This contention is without merit. The recomputation by the prison officials on December 1, 1959, was merely a corrective measure. The applicability of Public Law 86-259 is entirely foreign to this case and merits no further consideration.
Appellant’s principal ground for appeal involves the method of computation of statutory good time. By his formula he would have earned 562 days of statutory good time instead of 864 days, being a difference of 302 days. He argues that he was prematurely released; that upon his violation of the conditional release he forfeits only the 562 days of statutory good time earned as of November 26, 1958; and that the 302 days prematurely credited to him should be deducted from the 1,146 days not served to arrive at his violation term of 844 days.
Appellant’s contention is untenable. Mathematical gyrations must not be permitted to obscure the crux of the matter, namely, the amount of time remaining to be served on a sentence at the time the conditional release is made. No sound reason exists to warrant a deviation from the established rule that appellant may be required to serve the balance of the 1,146 days in his nine year sentence.
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4161.
. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4162.
. Yates v. Looney, 10 Cir., 250 F.2d 956; Taylor v. Daniels, 10 Cir., 284 F.2d 135; Wooten v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 265 F.2d 211; 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207.

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