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:
Richard Bryers CARROLL, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7040.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
April 12, 1968.
Francis E. Dooley, Jr., Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, for appellant.
Albert F. Cullen, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Paul F. Markham, U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
McENTEE, Circuit Judge.
The basic question raised by this appeal is whether the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. On June 1, 1966 he was indicted in the District of Massachusetts for knowingly transporting certain forged checks in interstate commerce and was scheduled to be arraigned on August 1, 1966. At that time he was serving a state court sentence in the Mississippi State Penitentiary where he remained confined until March 21, 1967. He was then taken into federal custody and thereafter released on bail. After his Mississippi attorney had informed the United States Attorney’s office in Boston on April 17, 1967, that his client was available when wanted, defendant was arraigned on the indictment in Boston on May 22, 1967. He was tried and found guilty on November 17, 1967. On two occasions prior to trial defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for failure of the government to arraign and try him speedily despite the fact that he specifically requested this. The district court denied both motions.
It is from the denial of the second motion to dismiss that defendant appeals. He does not complain of any post-arraignment delays. His complaint is that although August 1, 1966, was fixed as the date for his arraignment, he was not arraigned until May 22, 1967, nearly ten months later; that this delay was purposeful and oppressive, violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and for that reason the district court erred in not dismissing the indictment.
As we recently held in Fleming v. United States, 378 F.2d 502, 504 (1st Cir. 1967) mere lapse of time is not enough to establish denial of a speedy trial. There we observed that a delay of eleven months was “very short” and hence not unreasonable. It is essential that defendant also show prejudice or that the delay was improperly motivated. See also Schlinsky v. United States, 379 F.2d 735, 737 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 920, 88 S.Ct. 236, 19 L.Ed.2d 265 (1967).
Defendant made no showing of prejudice by reason of the delay. He contends, however, that the delay was improperly motivated — that the arraignment was purposely delayed because he would not cooperate with the FBI in the investigation of other matters. In support of this contention defendant’s counsel points to his client’s testimony that in June 1966 when he was interviewed by an FBI agent at the Mississippi State Penitentiary he requested a speedy arraignment and was informed by the agent that he would be arraigned in Boston on August 1, 1966. Defendant also testified that in a later interview’ (after August 1) with the same agent, relating to other matters, he asked the agent why he did not get him to court in Boston and the agent replied, “You don’t help me — why should I help you.”
The FBI agent testified that the only time he interviewed the defendant was on July 20, 1966, at the Mississippi State Penitentiary; that defendant made no request to him for a speedy arraignment and trial; that the date of August 1, 1966, was not mentioned and that at the time of this interview he did not know that the arraignment had been set for August 1. He further testified that he interviewed the defendant solely to ascertain whether he wished to stand trial in Massachusetts or have the case disposed of in Mississippi under Rule 20, Fed.R.Crim.P.; that defendant told him he wanted a trial and that he did not care to discuss the matter further. The agent testified that he did not have any other interview with the defendant.
On the testimony of these two witnesses, their demeanor and the letter of defendant’s Mississippi attorney dated April 17, 1967, which contained no indication that the defendant was interested in a speedy arraignment or trial, the court found that the defendant never made a request to any federal official for a speedy arraignment or trial and denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. Obviously the court was not impressed by the implications from defendant’s testimony that the arraignment was delayed because of defendant’s failure to cooperate with the FBI or the point later raised at the hearing on the second motion that apparently the FBI agent had two interviews with the defendant even though he stated he had but one. We cannot say that the district court’s findings were plainly wrong.
Affirmed.
. Defendant’s first motion, filed shortly after the arraignment, was heard and testimony taken on August 8, 1967. The district court denied this motion in a written memorandum dated September 15, 1967. At or about that time defendant’s attorney learned of some new evidence bearing on the truth and falsity of testimony given at the August 8 hearing and on October 24, 1967, filed a further motion to dismiss. Both motions raised the same basic issue. On November 20, 1967, a hearing was held on the further motion to dismiss and after argument this motion was also denied.
. At the hearing on the second motion to dismiss defendant’s counsel produced copies of Mississippi State Penitentiary records indicating that this FBI agent interviewed the defendant on July 20, 1966 and again on September 21, 1966. This new evidence was the basis for the second motion.

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