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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Frank Leroy THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Alfred Dennis LUCAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Nos. 71-1842, 71-1843.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 20, 1971.
Certiorari Denied April 17, 1972.
See 92 S.Ct. 1516.
G. Dennis Adams (argued), San Diego, Cal., for appellant Frank Leroy Thomas.
William A. Brockett, Charles M. Sevilla, San Diego, Cal., for appellant Alfred Dennis Lucas.
John R. Neece, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Robert H. Filsinger, Chief, Crim. Div., San Diego, Cal., for appellee United States.
Before MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON, District Judge.
Hon. Warren J. Ferguson, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated appeals follow a conviction by jury trial of the appellants Thomas and Lucas. The indictment charged appellants with conspiracy to smuggle marihuana, smuggling marihuana and transporting marihuana. Lucas was found guilty of the smuggling and transporting counts (21 U.S.C. § 176a), and Thomas was found guilty of the transporting count.
THOMAS APPEAL
Thomas contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal at the close of the government’s ease. The evidence is summarized in the government’s brief.
At 2:00 a. m. on Tuesday morning, September 1,. 1970, two Negroes, appellants Lucas and Thomas, drove up to the primary inspection lane at the port of entry, San Ysidro, California. At primary inspection, Inspector Konopacky asked appellants if they had anything to declare; Lucas, the driver said no, that they just went down to Mexico for beer and girls.
Lucas was asked who owned the car and he said, “a friend”; he was asked to open the trunk and was asked again who owned the car and he replied, “my brother”. Because of these responses regarding the car’s ownership and due to the fact that Lucas was overly friendly, the car was referred to secondary.
Inspector Konopacky, while walking the car to secondary, noticed a non-factory compartment underneath the car containing what appeared to be colored packages. A search of that compartment revealed five kilos of marihuana; nineteen more kilos were discovered under the back seat.
As Konopacky was escorting the Lucas automobile to secondary, he called to Inspector Stewart to take his position on the line. As Stewart approached primary, he came upon an automobile containing two Negroes who drove up immediately behind the Lucas vehicle. The occupants of this car were identified as Arthur Wilson and Lolita K. Graves. Stewart felt this car might be tied in with the Lucas vehicle and referred it also to secondary.
In the Wilson car were found matchbooks which were identical to matchbooks found on Lucas. In addition, in Lolita Graves’ purse was found a walk-ie-talkie which was identical to a walk-ie-talkie found in the glove compartment located in front of Thomas. Both walk-ie-talkies were operational.
Konopacky also testified that when he got into Lucas’ car there was a strong odor of marihuana throughout the vehicle. He further noticed that while Lucas stated in the presence of Thomas that they had been down to Tijuana for beer and girls, neither appellant appeared to be intoxicated, nor could Kono-packy smell alcohol on their breaths although he was as close as twelve inches from both individuals.
The theory of the defense was that Wilson and Graves (who later hijacked an airplane and fled to Cuba) and Ray Smith had used Lucas and Thomas as unknowing mules.
Lucas testified that he and Thomas went down to Tijuana and did a lot of drinking and ran into Ray Smith in a bar. Smith was described as a redheaded Negro, whom Lucas had never seen before.
Lucas first stated that Smith gave him $10 to drive the car for Smith’s brother who was in jail. Later, when Lucas could not account for the $10 supposedly given to him, he claimed that Smith had just bought them drinks and let him keep the change.
Lucas stated he told the story to Customs agents when he was arrested. This was denied by Agent Williams on rebuttal.
It is firmly established that mere presence or proximity to contraband in an automobile, without more, is insufficient to establish the guilt of a passenger for transporting. Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1962), cert, denied, 371 U.S. 930, 83 S. Ct. 294, 9 L.Ed.2d 238; Doherty v. United States, 318 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1963); Murray v. United States, 403 F.2d 694 (9th Cir. 1968); Bettis v. United States, 408 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1969).
In this case, the record is void of any evidence of what acts Thomas did to make him guilty of transporting marihuana. While inferences from facts which have been established by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt, United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969), mere suspicion or speculation cannot be the basis for the creation of logical inferences.
The judgment of conviction against the appellant Thomas is reversed.
LUCAS APPEAL
Lucas contends that the district court committed reversible error in denying his motion for a separate trial from Thomas.
During the second day of trial, Lucas made a motion for separate trial based upon an affidavit filed by his attorney. That affidavit stated that Thomas had told Lucas that if Thomas were called to the stand he would testify in Lucas’ behalf corroborating Lucas’ testimony. However, Thomas’ attorney had informed the affiant (Lucas’ attorney) that Thomas would not testify in order to preserve Thomas’ right to a judgment of acquittal. The affidavit then set forth that Thomas’ attorney stated that he probably would advise Thomas not to testify even if Thomas’ motion of acquittal were granted, although he was nearly certain, based upon conversations with Thomas, that Thomas would testify if Thomas were acquitted.
Lucas does not question the joinder of the charges against Lucas and Thomas in a single indictment. However, he sought an order pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure granting a severance of the trials. The motion was made after trial began, and the court does not express any opinion whether the motion was timely made. See Barnes v. United States, 347 F.2d 925 (8th Cir. 1965).
The power vested in the district court pursuant to Rule 14 is discretionary, and the only question on appeal is whether such discretion has been abused. Parker v. United States, 404 F.2d 1193 (9th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 394 U.S. 1004, 89 S.Ct. 1602, 22 L.Ed.2d 782 (1969). The test is whether a joint trial was so prejudicial to one defendant as to require the exercise of that discretion in only one way, that is, by ordering a separate trial.
When there has been insufficient showing that the codefendant would actually testify at a severed trial, the district court has not abused its discretion by refusing to grant the motion. United States v. Kilgore, 403 F.2d 627 (4th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 394 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 1204, 22 L.Ed.2d 462 (1969). The affidavit submitted by Lucas is clearly insufficient to require the conclusion that Thomas would testify at a severed trial. It is clear that Thomas’ counsel would have vigorously acted to prevent Thomas from testifying until such time as Thomas had first been acquitted.
In light of the remote likelihood of Thomas’ testifying and the fact that his testimony would merely be cumulative, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the trials. See Byrd v. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1970).
The conviction of the appellant Lucas 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