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:
Charles E. LARSEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James K. FRAZIER; Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 87-1280.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 1987.
Charles E. Larsen, pro se.
Robert A. Nance and Douglas B. Allen, Asst. Attys. Gen. (Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., of Okl., with them on the brief) Oklahoma City, Okl.; for Respondents-Appel-lees.
Before McKAY and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and GREENE, District Judge.
Honorable J. Thomas Greene, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8(c) and 27.1.-2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2254. We affirm.
In November, 1980, petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of burglary pursuant to a plea bargain. In January, 1984, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment after pleading guilty to unlawful use of a mislaid credit card after former conviction of a felony. The January, 1984, sentence was enhanced by the November, 1980, conviction. Petitioner did not file a direct criminal appeal from the conviction relating to the January, 1984, sentencing.
Petitioner, however, did file an application for state post-conviction relief in the District Court of Oklahoma County attacking the November, 1980, conviction. Petitioner alleged, among other things, that his plea bargain was null and void as a violation of Okla. Const, art. XXIII, § 8. Okla. Const, art. XXIII, § 8 provides: “Any provision of a contract, express or implied, made by any person, by which any of the benefits of this Constitution is sought to be waived, shall be null and void.” Without specific discussion of the allegation, the District Court of Oklahoma County denied relief and concluded petitioner voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights and pled guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed and stated that it had examined the application filed in the Oklahoma district court and found that even if petitioner’s statements were true, he had failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to any relief.
Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the district court alleging, among other things, that his plea bargain was void. The district court refused to review the allegation, finding that it contained no assertion of a violation of the constitution or laws of the United States.
This court reversed and remanded in Larsen v. Frazier, Unpublished No. 86-1593 (10th Cir. filed January 6,1987). This court determined that petitioner had alleged a violation of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, this court determined that an allegation that a state’s refusal to apply the protections of its own constitution is a denial of fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.
Upon reconsideration of the merits of the claim, the district court found that the Oklahoma courts have never construed the Oklahoma Constitution to prohibit guilty pleas, plea bargains, or the waiver of constitutional rights associated with the plea process. The district court concluded petitioner can make no argument on the law or the facts in support of his claim for relief. Petitioner appealed.
The validity of guilty pleas and plea bargains is a matter of state law. We will generally follow the interpretation of the laws of a state by its highest deciding court except where the interpretation is inconsistent with fundamental principles of liberty and justice. See Ewing v. Winans, 749 F.2d 607, 609 (10th Cir.1984); Tyrrell v. Crouse, 422 F.2d 852, 853 (10th Cir.1970); see also Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 167, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2226, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Hortonville Joint School Dist. No. 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass’n, 426 U.S. 482, 488, 96 S.Ct. 2308, 1312, 49 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976).
In this case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had the opportunity to review the constitutionality of the plea bargain on the merits. In summarily denying relief, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that plea bargains are valid and are not in violation of Okla. Const, art. XXIII, § 8. Because no fundamental principles of liberty or justice are involved, we conclude that plea bargains are valid in Oklahoma and are not in violation of Okla. Const, art. XXIII, § 8.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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