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-Appellee, v. Frederico G. RANDACCIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 351, Docket 35251.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 20, 1971.
Decided March 24, 1971.
H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Western District of New York, for plaintiff-appellee.
Herald Price Fahringer, Buffalo, N. Y. (Frank G. Raichle, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before MEDINA, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York of a motion pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The appellant was convicted of conspiring to commit a robbery which would affect interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1964) and to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2314 (1964). The conviction was affirmed by this court, United States v. Caci, 401 F.2d 664 (2d Cir. 1968), but the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the conviction should be set aside on the ground that the government’s evidence was based upon unlawful electronic eavesdropping. Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969).
After a hearing on the remand the District Court held that no evidence was unlawfully used and that determination is not an issue here. However the hearing revealed the existence of logs of surveillance showing that appellant was a regular visitor at a woman friend’s apartment on Essex Street in Buffalo, New York, where he claims to have been on February 5, 1965, while the meeting on which the government based its conspiracy charge was taking place at another location. Appellant contends that these logs constitute newly discovered evidence of a custom or habit which gives so much support to his alibi as to entitle him to a new trial.
We disagree and affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial.
For a new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, “(1) the evidence must have been discovered since the trial; (2) it must be material to the factual issues at the trial, and not merely cumulative * * *; (3) it must be of such a nature that it would probably produce a different verdict in the event of a retrial. United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 357 U.S. 937, 78 S.Ct. 1385, 2 L.Ed.2d 1551 (1958).” United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573, 576-577 (2d Cir. 1969). Appellant’s evidence fails to satisfy any of these requirements.
A review of the record shows that what appellant claims to be newly discovered evidence is no more than a new approach to facts already known to the appellant at the time of the trial. Before the trial, counsel for the appellant had been given copies of the surveillance logs for the entire month of February 1965. Among these logs was one which showed that the appellant had been overheard at his woman friend’s apartment on February 5, 1965 at 7:50 p. m. The log then indicated that the television was turned up loud and played continuously until 12:16 a. m. when the appellant was heard to leave. The men who conducted the monitoring stated that they did not hear Randaccio leave the apartment during the evening. However neither did they hear anything which would indicate his continued presence in the apartment between 7:50 p. m. and 12:16 a. m. The testimony of the government informant, Pascal Calabrese, placed Randaccio at the conspiratorial meeting at 60 Manchester Place at about 8:30 p. m. The meeting place is about nine-tenths of a mile from the Essex Street address. Thus as far as the surveillance logs go, it was possible that appellant left the Essex Street apartment sometime after 7:50 p. m., went to Manchester Place and returned before 12:16 a. m.
We reject the argument that the surveillance logs showing appellant present at the Essex Street address almost every Friday night establish a “pattern of conduct” which constitutes “newly discovered evidence” of sufficient cogency to justify the granting of a new trial.
Order and conviction 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