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. Roger Larson EPPS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lovic Moultrie INGRAM, Appellant.
Nos. 14765, 14766.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 22, 1971.
Arthur G. Murphy, Sr., Baltimore, Md., on brief for appellant, Roger Larson Epps.
Benjamin L. Brown, Baltimore, Md., on brief for appellant, Lovic Moultrie Ingram.
George Beall, U. S. Atty., and Charles G. Bernstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Before WINTER, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Larson Epps and Lovic Moul-trie Ingram were charged as codefend-ants in a three-count indictment with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (bank robbery by force and violence, or by intimidation) (count one), with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(b) (unarmed bank robbery) (count two), and with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d) (armed bank robbery) (count three). At the close of the government’s case, motions for acquittal with regard to count three were granted. A jury convicted Epps and Ingram of counts one and two. Epps was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years on count one, and ten years on count two, the sentences to run concurrently. Ingram was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years on count one, and ten years on count two, the sentences to run concurrently. In this appeal, the government has filed a motion to affirm the judgments summarily.
Both Epps and Ingram challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to convict them of count one. We think the note, handed to the teller by Epps, which stated, “Put all your money in this bag and nobody will get hurt,” sufficient under the circumstances to permit the jury to find that the bank robbery had been committed by intimidation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a).
Both also challenge the admission into evidence during the government’s rebuttal and hence, after the judgments of acquittal on the charge of armed bank robbery, of two boxes of cartridges. Reliance is placed upon United States v. Laker, 427 F.2d 189 (6 Cir. 1970), which held that admission of a gun in a prosecution for unarmed bank robbery is error.
Even if the scope of the decision in Laker is sufficiently broad to include the admission of ammunition, without the admission of a gun, in a prosecution for unarmed bank robbery, it is inapplicable here. The admission of the ammunition was proper to impeach the credibility of Epps. After Epps’ motion for a judgment of acquittal on the armed bank robbery count of the indictment was granted, Epps testified in his own behalf. In his direct testimony he said that he did not have a gun while he was in the bank. On cross-examination he repeated that he did not have a gun and he added that he had neither seen a gun nor any bullets on the person of his co-defendant or in the car which he drove to the bank. Admission into evidence of bullets recovered from the car was thus permissible impeachment of Epps’ credibility in the latter denial. The district judge did not abuse his discretion in the receipt of this evidence.
Ingram additionally claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of aiding and abetting under both counts one and two. We have carefully reviewed the evidence, and find it ample to convict him.
Although not raised by the appellants in their briefs, we think the imposition of the ten year concurrent sentences plain error. Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. Foster v. United States, No. 13,849 (4 Cir., December, 1969) (Mem. Dec.); Holland v. United States, 384 F.2d 370 (5 Cir. 1967); see Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370 (1956).
While we grant the motion for summary affirmance of the judgments on count one, we remand as to the judgments on count two with directions to vacate the ten year sentences.
Affirmed in part; vacated in part.

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