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:
Joseph RUKAVINA Petitioner, v. The IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 13547.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
May 24, 1962.
Anna R. Lavin, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
James P. O’Brien, U. S. Atty., John P. Crowley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for respondent.
Before KNOCH, CASTLE and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
KNOCH, Circuit Judge.
This petition for review of a deportation order is filed in this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, § 106(a) as amended (Public Law 87-301), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a(a).
Joseph Rukavina is a native of Austria-Hungary who entered the United States as a quota resident alien in 1914. Subsequently, in 1939, he was deported on the ground that he had been sentenced more than once, to imprisonment of one year or more, on conviction in the United States, of a crime committed after entry, involving moral turpitude. In one case, the offense was obtaining money, property, or credit, by means of the confidence game in the year 1933.
He re-entered as a stowaway, and in 1954, was again deported as an excludable alien. On May 31, 1960, he was again charged with being an excludable alien subject to deportation, having entered the United States in December, 1956, as a stowaway. After a hearing before a special inquiry officer, petitioner was ordered deported. His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed.
Petitioner contends that his deportation in 1939 was based in part on conviction of a crime which did not involve moral turpitude and that he was, therefore, illegally deprived of his resident status which he was merely resuming on the two occasions when he was charged with illegal entry.
It is petitioner’s position that “moral turpitude” characterizes an act of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards, as of the time of the act. Petitioner notes that obtaining money, etc., by the confidence game is not included among “infamous” crimes in the Illinois Revised Statutes, Ch. 38, § 587. Petitioner asserts that fraud is not involved in the offense and that the crime of which petitioner was convicted was one analogous to “bare embezzlement.”
Numerous Illinois cases have defined obtaining money by means of the confidence game as a crime involving a “fraudulent scheme.” Petitioner would have us disregard these cases as of too recent determination, and not representative of the moral standards of 1933. We cannot agree. Obtaining money by means of the confidence game involves an act of cheating or swindling. Even if we do limit ourselves to the accepted moral standards of 1933, we must conclude that the crime did involve moral turpitude.
Petitioner has moved this Court for leave to file the certified record of petitioner’s conviction in People v. Joseph Rukavina, No. 67036, Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois, in support of petitioner’s contention that his conviction was for a crime not involving moral turpitude.
This motion must be denied. Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a(a) (4) provides for our review of final orders of deportation to be based solely on the administrative record. The certified record sought to be filed is not a part of that administrative record. However, we doubt that this exhibit would aid petitioner’s case. It includes the indictment to which petitioner pleaded guilty. That indictment charges that petitioner “unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously did obtain * * * seven thousand dollars * * *."
Petitioner relies on DiPasquale v. Karnuth, 2 Cir., 1947, 158 F.2d 878 and Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 1947, 332 U.S. 388, 68 S.Ct. 10, 92 L.Ed. 17, to support his position that he was taken out of the United States against his will and hence cannot be said to have “entered” on his return. In DiPasquale, an alien rode in a railroad sleeping car from Buffalo, New York, to Detroit, Michigan, without knowing that the train passed through Canada on the way. The Second Circuit held that when, still asleep, he arrived at Detroit, he could not be said to have “entered” the country.
Delgadillo was a seaman. He made a legal entry in 1923 and resided in the United States continuously until 1942, when he shipped out on an intercoastal voyage from Los Angeles, California, to New York City, in an American merchant ship. The ship was torpedoed on the way. Delgadillo was rescued and taken to Havana, Cuba, where the American Consul cared for him for about a week. He was then returned to the United States via Miami, Florida. He continued to serve as a seaman in the American merchant fleet. The United States Supreme Court held that his arrival at Miami from Havana was not an “entry” within the meaning of the Immigration Act.
This short summary of the facts of these cases indicates that they differ materially from the matter presently before us.
Petitioner’s counsel in oral argument asserts a right to judicial review of the order of deportation entered in 1939 on the ground of gross miscarriage of justice. Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a(c). We have carefully reviewed the proceedings in the instant case and find no such gross miscarriage of justice as would justify our review of the 1939 proceedings. U. S. ex rel. Rubio v. Jordan, 7 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 573.
All other arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner have been carefully considered. None of them alters our conclusion that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals must be 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