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:
Theodore M. SPRINGFIELD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20424.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 11, 1968.
Decided Oct. 2, 1968.
Mr. Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., Washington, D. C., (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Carl S. Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Wright and Leventhal, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of carnal knowledge of a girl under sixteen years of age. On brief, he argued that the instructions regarding the elements of the offense were defective, that the instructions on reasonable doubt were confusing and that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the victim’s testimony. We have considered these contentions and find them without merit.
On oral argument a new issue was raised. Appellant contended for the first time that his case had been improperly treated as a capital one and that he had been prejudiced thereby. Appellant’s claim that his offense was not a capital one was based on the statutory language or, alternatively, on the proposition that capital punishment for statutory rape would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Since oral argument yet another complication has been added. In United States v. Jackson, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the penalty provisions of a statute which permitted only the jury to inflict capital punishment on the ground that these provisions inhibited defendants from exercising their Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The penalty provisions of the D.C. rape statute suffer from the same constitutional infirmity.
We conclude, however, that appellant was not prejudiced by the fact that his ease was treated as a capital one. Appellant’s allegations of prejudice are two. First he argues that he was prejudiced because people opposed to capital punishment were systematically excluded from the jury which found him guilty. But this contention was rejected in Witherspoon v. State of Illinois, and Bumper v. State of North Carolina, where the Supreme Court held that a jury from which people who opposed the death penalty were excluded could not impose the death sentence, but could determine guilt or innocence.
Appellant’s second claim is that because the jury improperly had the op-* tion to impose the death penalty it. may have compromised the verdict on guilt or innocence. In other words, some jurors who initially believed appellant was innocent may have agreed to find him guilty in return for other jurors’ giving up their demand for the death penalty.
On the facts of this case we find it overwhelmingly improbable that appellant was the victim of such a compromise. The prosecution never requested the death penalty, or even adverted to it. The trial judge gave it only a one-sentence mention in his charge to the jury. And the details of the crime were not such as to make it likely that the jurors seriously considered imposing the death penalty. Moreover, the evidence did not support a conviction for any lesser included offense, against which the jury might have been influenced by the judge’s passing mention of the death penalty. A statutory rape had been consummated, and the only real issue in the case was whether appellant was the perpetrator. On that question the evidence was compelling.
Since we find no prejudice, the decision below is affirmed.
. The case was treated as a capital one in that persons who opposed capital punishment were excluded from the jury and the jury was instructed that it could bring in the death penalty. Appellant was not given the death penalty, however.
. Appellant was convicted under D.C.Oode § 22-2S01, which provides:
Whoever has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will, or carnally knows and abuses a female child under sixteen years of age, shall be imprisoned for not more than thirty years: Provided, That in any case of rape the jury may add to their verdict, if it be guilty, the words ‘with the death penalty,’ in which case the punishment shall be death by electrocution: Provided further, That if the jury fail to agree as to the imnishment the verdict of guilty shall be received and the punishment shall be imprisonment as provided in this section.
Appellant contends that the proviso “in any case of rape” must refer to common law (forcible) rape if it is not redundant. But the fact that the entire chapter is entitled “rape” cuts against this interpretation.
In Sanselo v. United States, 44 App.D.C. 508 (1915), this court held that statutory rape was punishable by death.
. See Rudolph v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 889, 84 S.Ct. 155, 11 L.Ed.2d 119 (1963) (dissenting opinion of Goldberg, J.). Statu- . tory rapes occur very frequently and are rarely prosecuted.
. 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968).
. Bailey v. United States, 128 U.S.App. D.C. 354, 389 F.2d 305 (decided Sept. 13, 1968).
. 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968).
. 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).
. Cf. Bailey v. United States, supra note 5 (dissenting opinion of Faliy, J.).

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