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, Appellee, v. William Milton CARDEN, Appellant.
No. 78-5197.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.
H. Marshall Simpson, Greensboro, N.C. (Booth, Fish, Simpson, Harrison & Hall, Greensboro, N.C., on brief), for appellant.
David B. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty. (H. M. Michaux, Jr., U.S. Atty., Durham, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Upon a plea of guilty, William Milton Carden was convicted of committing bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Carden’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
On October 25, 1977, Carden withdrew a prior plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the offense of bank robbery. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4205(c) and (d), he was tentatively sentenced to the maximum term of 20 years and was committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of observation and study. On April 3, 1978, when Carden was returned to the court for resentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on April 7, 1978, and subsequently denied the motion. Car-den’s sentence was reduced to a term of 15 years with credit given for time served.
A preliminary question arises whether the presentence “fair and just” standard or the post-sentence “manifest injustice” standard should apply to the withdrawal of a guilty plea in the context of § 4205(c) sentencing. Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea be made before sentence is imposed. We have held that before sentencing a trial court may allow withdrawal of a plea for any fair and just reason, and that ordinarily such a motion to withdraw should be allowed. United States v. Truglio, 493 F.2d 574, 578 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Tabory, 462 F.2d 352, 354 (4th Cir. 1972). When the government has been prejudiced by reliance on the defendant’s plea, however, the trial court must weigh the accused’s reasons for changing his plea against the prejudice the government will suffer. United States v. Strauss, 563 F.2d 127 (4th Cir. 1977). On appeal, denial of the motion will be overturned only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Strauss, 563 F.2d 127, 131 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Ford, 363 F.2d 375, 377 (4th Cir. 1966). Withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentencing is permitted by Rule 32(d) only when necessary to correct manifest injustice.
Rule 32(d) does not address itself to the situation presented here where the defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea after he had been provisionally sentenced under § 4205(c), but before he received a final sentence. The district court applied the “fair and just” standard to Carden’s motion to withdraw his plea. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carden’s motion even under the more lenient standard, this appeal presents no occasion to decide, as a general rule, which standard is proper in the context of a bifurcated sentencing proceeding such as that prescribed by § 4205(c).
The district court conducted a full eviden-tiary hearing on the motion. Carden asserted his reasons for seeking to withdraw his plea, and the government showed that it would be substantially prejudiced if the plea were allowed to be withdrawn. The district court properly weighed the defendant’s reasons for seeking withdrawal against the prejudice demonstrated by the government. In accordance with our decision in United States v. Strauss, 563 F.2d 127, 131 (4th Cir. 1977), the following factors were considered: (1) the court’s Rule 11 inquiry; (2) the quality of representation received by Carden; (3) his mental condition at the time the guilty plea was entered; and (4) whether he had asserted his innocence.
Our review of the transcript of the April 7th hearing, and that of the Rule 11 inquiry, satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Car-den’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In contrast to the prejudice shown by the government, Carden has presented no satisfactory reason for allowing the withdrawal of his plea.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Two circuits have ruled that the “fair and just” standard should apply when a defendant moves to withdraw his guilty plea after he has been tentatively sentenced under § 4205(c) (formerly § 4208(b)), but prior to final sentencing. See United States v. Barker, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 514 F.2d 208 (1975); United States v. Thomas, 415 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1969). Several other circuits have reserved judgment on this question. See, e. g., United States v. Bradin, 535 F.2d 1039 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600 (3d Cir. 1973); Callaway v. United States, 367 F.2d 140 (10th Cir. 1966).

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