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:
ZYDOK v. BUTTERFIELD, Director of Immigration & Naturalization.
No. 11312.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 26, 1951.
Carol King, New York City (Carol King, New York City, and Alan N. Brown, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph Murphy, Detroit, Mich. (Edward T. Kane, Joseph C. Murphy, and Harry Kobel, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for ap-pellee.
Before HICKS, Chief Judge, ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
HICKS, Chief Judge.
Appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant, John Zydok, an alien, entered the United States in 1913. He was arrested in August, 1949 upon a warrant issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice. The warrant charged that he was found in the United States in violation of the Immigration Laws. The specific charge was that he was a member of an organization that advised, advocated or taught the overthrow, by force or violence, of the Government of the United States; and which wrote, circulated, distributed, printed, published or displayed written or printed matter advising, advocating or teaching the overthrow, by force or violence, of the Government.
Appellant was released under bond in the sum of $2,000.00. The condition of the bond was that appellant “shall be produced when required for a hearing or hearings in regard to the charge upon which he has been taken into custody, and for deportation if he should be found to be unlawfully in the United States.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 156, Sec. 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917.
Following appellant’s arrest, a deportation proceeding was instituted against him before the Immigration and Naturalization Service at Detroit, Mich., to determine the deportability of appellant and this proceeding was pending when appellant was again arrested on October 23, 1950. His rearrest was based upon the following provision of Sec. 23 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, to wit: “* * * Pending final determination of the deportability of any alien taken into custody under warrant of the Attorney General, such alien may, in the discretion of the Attorney General (1) be continued in custody; or (2) be released under bond in the amount of not less than $500, with security approved by the Attorney General; or (3) be released on conditional parole”, and was without warrant. He was held in prison without bail; hence the writ of habeas corpus.
The pertinent question here is, whether the Attorney General abused his discretion in causing appellant to be held without bail.
It is undeniably true that appellant was, before his original arrest, a member of the Communist Party and was financial secretary of the Hamtramck Division of the Communist Party of Michigan for the year 1949 and that as such secretary he assisted in the collection of funds to be used in the defense of the Communist Party leaders who were tried and convicted in New York under the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385, of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the Government and that the United States Department of Justice had information to that effect when appellant was rearrested. If in the exercise of sound judgment upon whether appellant should have been continued in custody, or have been released on bail, the Attorney General was limited to a consideration of the undisputed fact that appellant was a Communist, little may be urged against his decision in view of the preamble to the Internal Security Act of 1950. But we think that in determining whether appellant should have been granted or denied bail the Attorney General had a much wider latitude for decision.
Discretion does not mean decision upon one particular fact or set of facts. It means rather a just and proper decision in view of all the attending circumstances. The Styria v. Morgan, 186 U.S. 1, 9, 22 S.Ct. 731, 46 L.Ed. 1027. There are many circumstances which involve decision.
Appellant was seventeen years of age when he arrived in this country from Poland in 1913. Since then he has lived continuously in the State of Michigan. He has been a waiter in an English speaking restaurant in Hamtramck, Mich., for seventeen years and for a great part of that time he was head waiter. He owns his own home in Detroit and has a family consisting of his wife, two sons, a daughter, and five grandchildren. Both sons served in the armed services of the United States in World War II. His children and grandchildren were born in this country and his daughter married here. During World War II while appellant was head waiter in the restaurant he sold about $50,000.00 worth of U. S. War Bonds and during that period he donated blood on seven occasions to the Red Cross for the United States Army.
Before his second arrest and while he was at large on bail he reported regularly to the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Service. The record fails to disclose that he has violated any law or that he is engaged or is likely to engage in, any subversive activities. The fact that he assisted in collecting funds for the aid of the Communist defendants being tried under the Smith Act can hardly be regarded as an objection to the allowance of bail, for these defendants themselves were allowed bail after the affirmance of their convictions and even during the pendency of their appeals. Williamson v. United States, 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 280, opinion by Mr. Justice Jackson, pending certiorari.
The deportation proceedings against appellant have been pending since October, 1949 and there is no indication of an early termination thereof. In the meantime appellant is confined in jail.
The purpose of granting bail is to secure the presence of appellant when and as required. The denial of it is not intended as punishment. If bail is granted in some fair amount there is no reasonable ground to indicate that appellant would forfeit it.
The district court seemed of the opinion that it was the duty of appellant to make such clear and convincing showing as would justify it in holding that the Attorney General or his subordinates had gone beyond the limit of sound discretion in denying bail and the court found that as a witness appellant had ample opportunity to testify that he was not a member of the Communist Party or a part of the Communist movement at the date of his last arrest. While on the witness stand appellant claimed his conditional privilege against self-incrimination and upon that ground declined to testify touching his Communistic relations. We think that his refusal to so testify should not have operated against him. Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223.
We diink that a fair consideration of the factors above set out in their aggregate require that appellant should have been granted bail in some reasonable amount. This view is more nearly in accordance with the spirit of our instititions as it relates even to those who seek protection from the laws which they incongruously seek to destroy. See Carson v. Landon, Dist. Director, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 183; United States ex rel. Potash v. Dist. Director, 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 747, 752.
The result is that the order dismissing the writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case remanded to the district court with directions to proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Reversed.

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