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:
Mark IUTERI, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Joseph A. NARDOZA, Parole Commissioner Northeast Region, United States Parole Commission, Victor Liburdi, Warden, New Haven Community Correction Center, Respondents-Appellants.
Cal. No. 277, Docket 81-2254.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 11, 1981.
Decided Oct. 19, 1981.
Barry K. Stevens, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., (Richard Blumenthal, U. S. Atty. for the D. of Conn., New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Ira P. Grudberg, New Haven, Conn. (Karen Fox Tross, Jacobs, Jacobs & Grudberg, New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for petitioner-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, MANSFIELD and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Eginton, J., granting Mark Iuteri’s motion for release on bail pending a decision on Iuteri’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse.
On July 8, 1980, in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and interstate travel in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, aiding and abetting the use of interstate travel in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained money. Following a two-day sentencing hearing, petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling fifteen years. During the hearing, the Government introduced testimony that petitioner had a history of serious criminal behavior, including homicide, assault, fraud, kidnapping, narcotics, and extortion. Petitioner’s attorney cross-examined the Government’s witnesses but petitioner did not testify. However, in support of his motion for bail below, petitioner submitted affidavits to refute the testimony of the Government’s witnesses.
Petitioner received his initial parole hearing in April 1981, and was given an effective parole date of July 2, 1981. When fixing this date, the hearing examiners did not have before them the incriminating biographical data submitted at the sentencing hearing. The parties disagree as to whether the probation department in Hawaii or the Special Strike Force Attorney who prosecuted the case was responsible for this oversight, but agree that the Parole Commission did not have the transcript.
Upon being informed that the Parole Commission had not considered the sentencing hearing material, the Strike Force prosecutor in Hawaii, on June 17, 1981, prepared and forwarded to the Commission a summary report of the proceedings. On July 1, 1981, Joseph A. Nardoza, Parole Commissioner, Northeast Region, voted pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f) to retard petitioner’s parole so that the Commission could determine whether it would reconsider its initial parole decision. On July 10, 1981, the Commission voted to reconsider. A special reconsideration hearing was scheduled for August 17,1981, but was postponed at petitioner’s request.
On July 9,1981, Iuteri filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In a separate motion, he requested release on bail pending the district court’s decision on the habe-as corpus application. The district court reserved decision on the habeas corpus petition but granted petitioner’s bail application. This appeal followed.
Petitioner’s initial contention is that bail decisions are nonfinal orders and, therefore, not appealable by the Government. We disagree. There are compelling reasons to entertain appeals by the Government from orders granting bail in habeas corpus proceedings where, as here, incarceration has resulted from a conviction. Because of the conviction, the Government has a justified interest in petitioner’s continued incarceration, and petitioner has the burden of showing special reasons why bail is warranted. See Ostrer v. United States, 584 F.2d 594, 599 (2d Cir. 1978).
The object of habeas corpus proceedings is freedom from incarceration. Release on bail supplies the sought-after remedy before the merits of petitioner’s application are determined. If review of the grant of bail must await the district court’s decision on the habeas corpus application, the review will be substantially meaningless. In determining appealability, the finality rule is given a “practical rather than a technical construction”. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 658, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2039, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949)). Because the district court’s bail order gave petitioner relief which was collateral to the underlying proceeding and not subject to meaningful review on an appeal from the habeas corpus determination, its order may be treated as final. See, Luther v. Molina, 627 F.2d 71, 73 n.l (7th Cir. 1980).
The merits of petitioner’s habeas corpus application are not before us on this appeal because the district court has twice refrained from granting the requested writ. What is before us in the district court’s determination that the test set out in Ostrer v. United States, supra, 584 F.2d at 596 n.l, was met, namely, that the habeas petition raised substantial claims and that extraordinary circumstances existed that make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective. Petitioner claimed that the Commission improperly classified as new the information it received three days before his scheduled release, and that the automatic retardation provision of 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f) was a denial of due process. The district court viewed both to be substantial claims with a “likelihood of success.” We disagree.
While petitioner’s counsel maintained that the substance of the Hawaii sentencing hearing was presented to the Parole Commission at the parole hearing, no transcript of the parole hearing is available and it is undisputed that the actual sentencing transcript and the summary report prepared by the Hawaii prosecutor had not been considered by the Commission. We therefore defer to the determination of Commissioner Nardoza that the materials constituted new information. We similarly find insubstantial petitioner’s claim that the failure to provide a hearing prior to retarding his scheduled release is unconstitutional. The pertinent regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f), conditions a petitioner’s release date on the absence of new information that might warrant retarding the release. Moreover, since a hearing prior to the arrest of a parolee for alleged parole violations is not required as a matter of due process, Morris-sey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), a fortiori a prior hearing is not required to retard the scheduled release of someone still under confinement. We also note that 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f) does expressly provide for a subsequent hearing to reconsider the parole in light of the new information and that such a hearing was scheduled in this case.
Iuteri contends further that his case is extraordinary because, if the habeas writ is granted, it will mean that his incarceration after July 2,1981, would have been without basis. However, there is nothing unusual about this. Virtually all habeas corpus petitioners argue that their confinement is unlawful. Petitioner’s final contention that the Parole Commission and prosecuting attorneys acted in bad faith to delay his release and thus hamper his ability to defend himself at his murder trial in Connecticut Superior Court is without support in the record.
In short, this case is totally devoid of facts which distinguish it in any way from typical habeas corpus proceedings. The district court’s grant of petitioner’s bail application, based on the court’s finding that danger to the community could be minimized “by ordering petitioner not to make any threats or intimidating remarks to any person while released on bond” constituted an abuse of discretion.
The order granting bail is reversed. Mandate shall issue forthwith.

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