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. William A. EGAN, Jr., Appellant.
No. 665, Docket 72-1102.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 13,1972.
Decided April 20, 1972.
William A. Egan, Jr., White Plains, N. Y., pro se.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., and Peter F. Rient, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for appel-lee.
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and SMITH and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We affirm this appeal from a conviction for willful failure to file federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1964 through 1967, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. The principal contention is that, because the income tax returns for those years contained the usual question to be answered by the taxpayer whether returns were filed for prior years, and because taxpayer had not filed returns for the years 1960-63 inclusive, he was put in what has been called the “cruel trilemma”: if he filed the return and answered the question truthfully he would have been confessing to a crime; if he answered the question untruthfully he would have been subjecting himself to a perjury charge; if he failed to file the return he would have been committing a crime. Cf. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 11-12, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964). See also United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927); Friendly, The Fifth Amendment Tomorrow: The Case for Constitutional Change, 37 U. Cin.L.Rev. 671, 719-20 (1968). But there might have been any number of reasons not to file returns for the years 1960-63, some of which appellant stated to the Internal Revenue Service — e. g., he had lost money in those years. Answering the question on the return in the negative with an explanation of this nature, if true, would of course not have resulted in criminal charges. But even considering that question was incriminating, since the government has a substantial interest in its tax revenues, appellant’s privilege would relate only to his refusal to respond to the question, not to a total failure to file the return. The fifth amendment protects against giving testimony against oneself, not against bringing attention to oneself. Cf. California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 434, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 1541, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971) (“There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return ... in order to avoid the possibility of legal involvement”).
The court’s charge on willfulness was essentially correct; Appellant made a request to charge that, if the jury found that appellant did not file his returns for the years in question for fear of incriminating himself for previous violations, the jury must acquit. But this is no defense, United States v. Fullerton, 189 F.Supp. 211 (D.Md.1960), and the court gave the appellant all that, perhaps even more than, he was entitled to by saying that the jury should acquit if it found that appellant believed he had a constitutional right not to file tax returns.
Appellant's remaining argument concerns certain considerations stated by the court while rendering an otherwise perfectly proper sentence. “A sentencing judge has very broad discretion in imposing any sentence within the statutory limits . . .,” United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181, 183 (2d Cir. 1972), and in the exercise of that discretion he may consider a wide range of data. See id. at 183-184 and cases there cited. The characterization of the crime of failing to file income tax returns as “acquisitive” may not have been totally accurate when, apparently, relatively small amounts of dollars were involved. But it is descriptive of the general type of crime as opposed to one of violence, drugs or the like, and the judge was expressing a perfectly proper philosophy of sentencing to the effect that this kind of crime — sometimes called “white collar” or “commercial” — should be treated just as seriously as some of the so-called “ghetto” crimes. Taking note of the defense of self-incrimination as having “come up very late in the game” ’ was supported factually in the record and did not refer to trial tactics, but to appellant’s previous explanations for his failure to file.
Judgment affirmed.
. Enter the name and address used on your return for [last year] (if the same as above, write “same”). If none filed, give reason.
The return forms for 1965 through 1967 included the additional phrase: “If changing from separate to joint or joint to separate returns enter [last year’s] names and addresses.”

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