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, Appellee, v. Vincent SCHWENOHA and Nathan Suess, Appellants.
No. 71, Docket 31240.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 25, 1967.
Decided Sept. 28, 1967.
Frederick F. Greenman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, Robert G. Morvillo, Pierre N. Leval, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel), for appellee.
Samuel Rowe, New York City, for appellants.
Before MOORE, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:
This appeal reveals a typical stock fraud upon the public which the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq., was designed to prevent. Vincent Schwenoha purchased in 1956 all the outstanding stock of the Belmont Divide Mining Corporation, a paper corporation that had ceased doing business in 1924. He and others devised a plan to sell this worthless stock to the public without registering it with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The corporation’s name was changed to Belmont Oil Corporation, certain oil leases of unspecified value were given to the corporation to create the appearance of assets, the stock was split ten for one to create more shares to sell to the public and placed in the names of nominees to conceal the fact of control by a handful of conspirators. Nathan Suess then joined the conspiracy and assisted in finding brokers who would sell the worthless stock to the naive and trusting public. Calling himself the public relations man for Belmont Oil, Suess met with co-defendants Edward Cantor and Michael Canter at the office of their brokerage firm, Peerless-New York, Inc., and arranged for them to maintain a market for Belmont stock and also to sell the stock to the public. These and other brokers sold Belmont to the public for about one dollar per share by typical boiler-room methods. Eight co-defendants pleaded guilty; appellants were convicted by a jury of conspiracy and also found guilty of causing unregistered Belmont stock to be mailed on July 14, August 6, and October 2, 1959 for the purposes of sale and delivery after sale.
Appellants’ main contention is that the stock was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act because it was issued originally in 1919, long before the passage of the Act in 1933. They rely on section 3(a) (1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a) (1), which exempts from registration “any security which, prior to or within sixty days after May 27, 1933, has been sold or disposed of by the issuer or bona fide offered to the public, * * * ” But, their dependence on this argument ignores the language of the remaining portion of that sentence, which states, “but this exemption shall not apply to any new offering of any such security by an issuer or underwriter subsequent to such sixty days * * * ” It is undisputed that the sale of Belmont stock to the public was a new offering, and there is little question that appellants were issuers or underwriters. See 15 U.S.C. § 77b(ll); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Culpepper, 270 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1959). The evidence is overwhelming that they and others acted together to control Belmont Oil thoroughly and completely, and that they knew the stock they sold to various brokers would be resold to the public; in truth, that was their ultimate goal.
Moreover, appellants urge that Judge Palmieri committed reversible error by not charging the jury with respect to the applicable five-year statute of limitations. This claim is wholly without merit because it is undisputed that the mailings for which appellants were convicted occurred between July 14 and October 2, 1959. Accordingly, the acts occurred within five years of the filing of the indictment on July 14, 1964. Burnet v. Willingham Loan & Trust Co., 282 U.S. 437, 51 S.Ct. 185, 75 L.Ed. 448 (1931). Appellants call to our attention, however, that they individually did not commit acts within the statutory period. In this connection, Schwenoha urges that he testified that he withdrew from the conspiracy in March 1959. But as we noted in United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376, 388 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied sub nom. Cinquegrano v. United States, 379 U.S. 960, 85 S.Ct. 647, 13 L.Ed.2d 555 (1965), “mere cessation of activity is not enough to start the running of the statute; there must be affirmative action, either the making of a clean breast to the authorities, * * * or communication of the abandonment in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.” The record is clear that the alleged withdrawal does not come close to meeting this test; in any event, no exception was taken to the failure to charge on the issue of withdrawal. See F.R.Crim.P. 30; United States v. Kahaner, 317 F.2d 459 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 836, 84 S. Ct. 74, 11 L.Ed.2d 65 (1963). The evidence of withdrawal being insufficient to raise a question for the jury, a fortiori appellants’ motion for acquittal on this ground was properly denied.
We have examined appellants’ other claims and find them to be without merit. The judgment is affirmed.
. A mistrial was declared as to one co-defendant; five corporate co-defendants were tried separately.

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