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. Alejandro GARCIA MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 29646.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 1971.
James R. Gillespie, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
Seagal V. Wheatley, U. S. Atty., Wayne Speck, Reese L. Harrison, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Before WISDOM, THORNBERRY, and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Garcia Mendez was convicted by the court on a one count indictment charging him with knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully purchasing, selling, and dispensing heroin not in or from the original stamped package, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). He was sentenced to serve eight years in the custody of the Attorney General. We affirm.
Early on the morning of September 4, 1969, federal and state officers arrived at 138 Darson Marie Street, San Antonio, Texas, for the purpose of executing a search warrant. As they surrounded the house, one of the officers peered through a bedroom window and discovered the defendant Mendez asleep on the ‘bed with an automatic revolver inches away from his hand. While the officer at the window kept his drawn pistol trained on Mendez, the other officers forcibly entered the house and seized Mendez as he awoke. A search of the house disclosed a substantial quantity of heroin in unstamped containers, which the Government introduced as evidence at Mendez’s trial.
Mendez’s sole contention on appeal is that by forcibly entering his house without knocking or announcing their purpose, the arresting officers violated 18 U.S.C. § 3109 and that the district court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found inside the house. The Government, on the other hand, argues that “exigent circumstances” existed to justify the officers’ lack of compliance with the announcement rule. Cf. Miller v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 301, 309, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332, 1338.
Although the Supreme Court generally requires strict compliance with the unqualified terms of the “knock and announce” statute, it recognizes exceptions to the rule. See Sabbath v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 585, 88 S.Ct. 1755, 20 L.Ed.2d 828; Ker v. California, 1963, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726. Similarly the Ninth Circuit has held — on facts strikingly similar to the facts this case presents — that federal officers may dispense with the requirement of a prior announcement “where to require it would create palpable peril to the life and limb of the arresting officers.” Gilbert v. United States, 9 Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 923, 932. See also Blakey, The Rule of Announcement and Unlawful Entry, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 499, 542-543 (1964). In view of the drawn weapon lying within the reach of the defendant a prior announcement might well have endangered not only the arresting officers but also the defendant himself.
On the authority of Sabbath and Gilbert, we hold that in the limited circumstances of this case the arresting officers were justified in failing to comply with the terms of the statute.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. § 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit.
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.

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