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:
Radames MERCADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 456, Docket 89-2316.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 1990.
Decided Jan. 10, 1990.
Opinion Published March 5, 1990.
Radames Mercado, Ray Brook, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., E.D. N.Y., David C. James, Robert W. Biddle, Asst. U.S. Attys., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellee.
Before MESKILL and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges, and POLLACK, District Judge.
Hon. Milton Pollack, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
This is a pro se appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, McLaughlin, J., granting in part and denying in part appellant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appellant raises the issue of what form, if any, of post-release supervision may be imposed as part of a sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a substance containing cocaine in excess of 500 grams with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(i-i)(II). The district court originally sentenced him to a twelve year term of imprisonment to be followed by a ten year term of supervised release. Appellant moved pursuant to section 2255, inter alia, to vacate the term of supervised release. The court granted the motion to the extent that the portion of the sentence that imposed a term of supervised release was vacated and replaced with a ten year special parole term. On appeal, appellant maintains that the statute applicable to his offense at the time did not provide for any form of post-release supervision.
The confusion surrounding the type of post-release supervision, if any, that may be imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) stems from an apparent oversight by Congress in the drafting of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (1984 Act), Pub.L. No. 98-473, §§ 224(a), 502, 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News (98 Stat.) 1987, 2030, 2068, and from questions regarding the effective dates of the repeal of the relevant special parole provisions and their replacement with provisions requiring supervised release. See United States v. Byrd, 837 F.2d 179, 180-81 (5th Cir.1988). Several other circuits have thoroughly reviewed the issue and have held that the imposition of a term of supervised release is not authorized for offenses under section 841(b)(1)(B) committed prior to November 1, 1987; instead, a term of special parole must be imposed. United States v. Portillo, 863 F.2d 25, 26 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam); United States v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849, 860 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 534, 102 L.Ed.2d 566 (1988); United States v. Smith, 840 F.2d 886, 889-90 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 154, 102 L.Ed.2d 125 (1988); Byrd, 837 F.2d at 181-82; see United States v. Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1487-89 (10th Cir.1989) (21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)). But see United States v. Torres, 880 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that supervised release provisions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) were effective as of October 27, 1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 873, 107 L.Ed.2d 956 (1990). The legislative history of the 1984 Act indicates that the replacement of special parole with supervised release applies only to those offenses occurring on or after the effective date of November 1, 1987. S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 189, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3182, 3372; see Byrd, 837 F.2d at 181. We therefore agree with the other circuits that have determined that special parole terms, rather than supervised release, must be imposed for offenses under section 841(b)(1)(B) committed before November 1, 1987.
Because appellant’s offense took place prior to November 1, 1987, the district court properly replaced that portion of the original sentence imposing a term of supervised release with a special parole term.
We have reviewed appellant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is 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