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:
Vincent Charles GUNVILLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18887.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Dec. 4, 1967.
Vincent Charles Gunville, pro se.
John O. Garaas, U. S. Atty. for District of North Dakota, Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, and GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On November 8, 1965, Vincent Charles Gunville, through his counsel, entered a formal plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, Northeastern Division, to count one of a two-count indictment which was returned by the grand jury on September 13, 1963. The indictment charged appellant with the crimes of rape (count one) and incest (count two), violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1153. He was sentenced by the court on November 9, 1965, to serve ten years in prison. No appeal was taken from this judgment and sentence. On March 26, 1967, Gunville filed with the sentencing court a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 requesting that his sentence be vacated. His motion was denied in a memorandum and order issued on April 28, 1967. Gunville filed a notice of appeal from that order on May 8, 1967. On that date the sentencing court entered an order permitting Gunville to proceed with his appeal in forma pau-peris.
The points raised by Gunville in this appeal are: (1) The charge against him was not by an indictment; (2) the court had no jurisdiction because the elements of the crime were not set forth in the indictment; (3) the sentence was excessive; and (4) the dismissal of one count in a two-count indictment invalidated the indictment.
A review of the record in this case indicates clearly that appellant was properly charged. The charge was brought on a properly drawn grand jury indictment and was not based on an United States Attorney’s information, as appellant contends. Furthermore, contrary to appellant’s contention, the indictment was signed by the foreman of the grand jury.
It is also apparent that the elements of the crimes were set forth in the indictment.
Count one of the indictment read:
“That on or about the 8th day of June, 1962, near Dunseith, North Dakota, in Indian country, within the exterior boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America, the above-named Defendant, VINCENT CHARLES GUNVILLE, a male Indian of the age of 37 years, did forcibly overcome the resistance of one Barbara Gunville, a female Indian of the age of 13 years, and did have sexual intercourse with the said Barbara Gunville, and she, the said Barbara Gunville, was not the wife of the said Vincent Charles Gun-ville.”
Count two of the indictment charged that the appellant knowingly had the act of sexual intercourse referred to in count one with his daughter, a person “related to him within a degree of consanguinity within which marriages by the laws [of the State of North Dakota] are declared incestuous and void.” See, N.D.C.C. § 12-22-06 and § 14-03-03.
18 U.S.C.A. § 1153, relating to offenses committed within Indian country, provides :
“Any Indian who commits against the person * * * of another Indian * * * any of the following offenses, namely, * * * rape, incest * * * within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
“As used in this section, the offense of rape shall be defined in accordance with the laws of the State in which the offense was committed, and any Indian who commits the offense of rape upon any female Indian within the Indian country, shall be imprisoned at the discretion of the court.”
It is clear from the section just quoted that the crime of rape is defined according to state law. The North Dakota statute (N.D.C.C. § 12-30-01) defines rape as «* * * an act of sexual intercourse, accomplished with a female, not the wife of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances”; in separate subdivisions seven circumstances are then set out in the statute, two being:
“3. When she resists, but her resistance is overcome by force or violence ;
“4. When she is prevented from resisting by threats of immediate and great bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution ;”.
Appellant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive relates to his contention that he was charged by information rather than indictment. He contends that crimes subject to sentence of more than one year cannot be brought by information. As seen from our discussion of appellant’s first contention, he was charged by indictment and not by an information and thus the ten-year sentence imposed by the court was clearly within 18 U.S.C.A. § 1153, which allows sentence of up to life for the crime to which appellant pleaded guilty.
Count two of the indictment was dismissed when appellant moved the court, through his attorney, to change his plea of not guilty to the offense of rape, as charged in count one of the indictment, to guilty. This occurred after the time for trial had been set, the jury selected, and after the victim, appellant’s daughter, had testified as a government witness to the events which formed the basis for the two-count indictment. The court granted the motion after it was convinced that Gunville understood the statutory law to which he was pleading guilty as well as the punishment for that crime.
Appellant now contends that the resulting dismissal of the second count invalidated the indictment. This contention is without merit. A guilty plea waives any defect in the form of the allegations and any defects which are not jurisdictional. United States ex rel. Glenn v. McMann, 2 Cir., 1965, 349 F.2d 1018; Weir v. United States, 7 Cir., 1937, 92 F.2d 634. The dismissal of the second count of the indictment was the result of an order induced by appellant when he pleaded guilty to count one and “he is now estopped to claim that jurisdiction was lost by an order induced by him, * * Ralston v. Cox, 5 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 196.
Additionally, we would point out, as the government did in its brief, that historically each count of a multi-count indictment is treated as a separate, independent and distinct criminal charge. The dismissal of one or more of such counts has no effect upon the remaining counts. For many years it has been customary for defendants charged in a multi-count indictment to plead to one or more of the counts and have the court dismiss the remaining count or counts. McClintock v. United States, 10 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 839. Cf., Salinger v. United States, 1926, 272 U.S. 542, 47 S.Ct. 173, 71 L.Ed. 398; Gainey v. United States, 10 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 795.
Finding no substance in appellant’s contentions, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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