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:
Stephen Luther EVANS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 16962.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 1968.
Decided March 6, 1968.
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1968.
Stephen Luther Evans, pro se.
Ralph B. D’lorio, Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul R. Sand, Asst. Dist. Atty., Delaware County, Media, Pa. (Vram S. Nedurian, Asst. Dist. Atty., John R. Graham, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, FREEDMAN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the court on appeal from a district court order denying appellant’s right to proceed in forma pauperis in prosecuting a Petition for A Declaratory Judgment seeking “an Order directed to the prosecuting authorities of * * *. (Delaware County, Pa. requiring them to) * * * institute the necessary proceedings to accord him his right to a speedy trial (on charges of armed robbery, burglary, receiving stolen goods and conspiracy) * * * ” or dismiss such charges.
While confined under a federal sentence, Appellant first forwarded a Motion to the state court asking for a speedy trial on March 17, 1967. After this Motion was denied, the above Petition was filed and denied by the district court in June, 1967. During this 100 day period Appellant was “confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri” and his treatment was presumably incomplete. It was not unreasonable for the law enforcement authorities to decline to bring petitioner one-half way across the country for his trial on the above charges within this four month period. Under these circumstances, this record does not show a denial by appellee of the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Cf. Bistram v. People of the State of Minnesota, 330 F.2d 450, 452-453 (8th Cir. 1964) and cases there cited.
Also it is noted that petitioner may always move for the dismissal of criminal charges pending against him in the state court, if his right to a speedy trial has been denied, and he may present any denial of this right to the Supreme Court of the United States by petition for certiorari after exhausting his appellate rights in the state courts. See Bistram Case, supra, at 453. The availability of declaratory judgment relief under 28 U.S. C. § 2201 to a federal prisoner in such a situation is limited to cases involving a far more unusual record than that now before this court. Cf. Sepulveda v. State of Colorado, 335 F.2d 581, 582-583 (10th Cir. 1964) and cases there cited.
The order of the District Court will be affirmed.
. Indictments Nos. 438-441, March Sessions, 1964, Criminal Courts of Delaware County, Pa.
. Having been transferred to the U. S. Northeastern Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, at some time in late July, 1967 so that he would be available for trial in the Quarter Sessions Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, the above criminal charges were listed for trial at the January Term, 1968. When Appellant appeared for trial on January 15, 1968 with the Delaware County Public Defender present to represent him, he asked the court to appoint other counsel “who is not affliated nor a Public Defender,” stating that he would like “eoun-sel of my own ethnic group.” The case was continued to January 22 at which time the Public Defender reported that Appellant had refused to cooperate with him and had refused to give him the names of any witnesses so that the case was continued “for the term.” A letter of October 17, 1967 from the District Attorney attached to appellee’s brief states that the charges could not be listed during the October, 1967 Criminal Term due to “the unavailability of either of the two material witnesses.”
. See Klopfer v. State of North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222-226, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967).

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