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, Appellee, v. Alfred GLASS, Appellant.
No. 84-1807.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 1985.
Decided May 7, 1985.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 7, 1985.
Springfield Bladwin, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Michael K. Fagan, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, Senior District Judge.
The Hon. William C. Hanson, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa, sitting by designation.
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Alfred Glass has been convicted on his plea of guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and of possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. He was sentenced to two years on the first count and ten years on the second count (the maximum allowed by statute). He then moved for leave to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that the government, while stating on the record the facts it would seek to prove at trial if the case were to go to trial, had not mentioned any evidence to show that the firearm in question had moved in interstate commerce, an essential element of the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He also argued that the District Court sentenced him harshly and was prejudiced against him because of his race. (Both the district judge and the defendant are black, and defendant’s theory is that the judge treated him more severely because of his desire to deter crime in the black community.) This motion was denied, and defendant appealed. We noted that the government had omitted to mention interstate commerce during its statement of intended proof, but we remanded to give the United States a chance, in a reopened hearing before the District Court, to show that it did indeed have evidence to satisfy this element of the crime. United States v. Glass, 720 F.2d 21 (8th Cir.1983). We expressed no view on the allegation of prejudice, leaving that for further development on remand.
The additional hearing has now been held, and the motion for leave to withdraw the plea.of guilty has again been denied. Glass appeals, arguing, among other things, that the judge was prejudiced against him, that testimony at the eviden-tiary hearing by the lawyer who represented him at the time of his plea of guilty was a breach of the attorney-client privilege, and that the gun was not in or affecting commerce because it was abandoned property.
We affirm. We have read the transcript of the sentencing, as well as the record of the proceedings on remand after our first opinion, and we are convinced that the judge was not prejudiced against Glass. The District Court expressed its repugnance to crime in general, especially to crime in the black community and to gun crimes, but in doing so it merely voiced out loud feelings that many people of all races share. It is up to the sentencing judge, within broad limits, to determine how much or how little he or she will say when sentence is imposed. We are not persuaded that the District Court would have imposed a less onerous sentence on Glass if he had been white.
As to the testimony of Glass’s attorney, he stated simply that the elements of the crime, including interstate commerce, were discussed with Glass before the plea of guilty was entered. Counsel said nothing that violated any confidence placed in him by Glass or revealed any material communication made to him by Glass. In addition, the claim that Glass’s counsel had not advised him properly, so as to enable him to make a knowing and intelligent plea of guilty, was in substance an attack on counsel’s conduct, and he had a right to defend himself.
We also disagree with defendant’s abandoned-property argument. The government had documentary proof that the gun had been manufactured in Massachusetts. It is undisputed that the gun was in Missouri when it was in Glass’s possession. This is a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce. Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1969, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). That the gun may have been, at some time during its history, “abandoned” by some previous owner is not material. The factual basis for the plea was adequately shown, and no manifest injustice justifying the granting of a motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d) for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty has been established.
We have considered Glass’s other arguments and hold that they are without merit.
We are indebted to Glass’s appointed counsel for his diligent and determined services in behalf of his client.
Affirmed.
. The Hon. Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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