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 ex rel. Terry BETTS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. COUNTY COURT FOR LaCROSSE COUNTY, BRANCH II, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
No. 73-1668.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Heard Feb. 20, 1974.
Decided May 13, 1974.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Robert D. Repasky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for respondents-appellants.
Patrick R. Doyle, La Crosse, Wis., for petitioner-appellee.
Before CUMMINGS and STEVENS, Circuit Judges, and GRANT, Senior District Judge.
Senior District Judge Robert A. Grant of the Northern District of Indiana is sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
In this habeas corpus proceeding, it was shown that petitioner was convicted upon a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary in the County Court of La Crosse County, Wisconsin. Although the maximum sentence provided by Section 943.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes was ten years, petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of two years in the Wisconsin State Reformatory. On April 13, 1972, his two-year sentence of imprisonment expired. On June 5, 1972, following a confession of error by the State, the Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of petitioner’s guilty plea and remanded the case to the County Court. On September 28, 1972, that court entered an order allowing withdrawal of the guilty plea and called for a new arraignment upon the burglary charge. Thereafter petitioner entered an appearance and filed a motion to dismiss further proceedings, alleging they would violate the double jeopardy clause. After failing to receive relief from the trial court or the Wisconsin Supreme Court, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the district court.
On May 25, 1973, the district court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Its opinion relied particularly upon Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 85 U.S. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872; the court refused to apply North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656. We conclude that Pearce permits a retrial of the burglary charge and accordingly reverse.
Because petitioner had already served a complete sentence, the district court held that Ex parte Lange, supra, barred his retrial under the principle of double jeopardy. However, that case did not involve a retrial, but rather the validity of a second sentence imposed by the trial court on the original conviction after a maximum sentence had already been served. The original conviction was never questioned there. Here, by contrast, the original conviction has been set aside, and if there is a second sentence, it will be imposed on a second conviction. Lange expressly held that a second trial may be had without violating the double jeopardy clause when the accused has prosecuted a writ of error. 85 U.S. at 174. Lange is further distinguishable because the first sentence imposed here was less than the statutory maximum.
We conclude that this case is controlled by North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, which dealt with “the imposition of wholly new sentences after wholly new trials.” 395 U.S. at 722. There the Supreme Court held that “the guarantee against double jeopardy imposes no restrictions upon the length of a sentence imposed upon reconviction.” Id. at 719. Under Pearce, a trial court has power to impose punishment following retrial, although the prior sentence must be credited.
Pearce also holds that the due process clause provides some protection. If the judge imposes a more severe sentence upon petitioner’s retrial, Pearce requires an affirmative showing of reasons for doing so. As Justice Stewart stated (at p. 726):
“Those reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. And the factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made part of the record, so that the constitutional legitimacy of the increased sentence may be fully reviewed on appeal.”
The fact that petitioner took an appeal would be an impermissible reason for increasing his sentence. Id. at 724.
In the present case where the first sentence has already been completed, Pearce requires a particularly strong showing by .the State to justify an increased sentence because completion of the first sentence raises the presumption that its purposes have been fulfilled.
At common law, the issue before us could not arise since “the right of appeal was gone when the punishment had once been suffered.” Lange, supra, at 169. Petitioner could have obviated any retrial by withdrawing his then pending appeal after completing his sentence. Since the collateral consequences of his conviction are apparently important to petitioner, it is not so unfair for the State also to consider them important. A retrial will serve to determine petitioner’s guilt or innocence for collateral purposes; Pearce will protect him against additional punishment unless justified.
The order of the district court is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition.

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