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. Daniel C. STINSON, Appellant.
No. 78-5145.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 6, 1979.
Decided March 26, 1979.
C. T. Neale, III, Newport News, Va. (Hudgins & Neale, Newport News, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Raymond A. Jackson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va. (William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD DUMBAULD, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:
Daniel C. Stinson appeals his conviction of nine counts involving possession of unregistered firearms, dealing in firearms without a license, and transfer of firearms without paying transfer taxes. He assigns error to the following: (1) pre-indictment delay; (2) the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence obtained through electronic surveillance; (3) the court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment because of pretrial publicity resulting from statements of government agents; (4) citation of the wrong subsection of the criminal statute in one count of the indictment; (5) insufficiency of the evidence; (6) prejudice in exposing the jury to evidence relating to a count of the indictment that was subsequently removed from the jury’s consideration; and (7) prosecutorial misconduct in the facts giving rise to the first and sixth issues. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Stinson was tried one year after the government’s last purchase of weapons from him. However, the only significant delay not attributable to Stinson himself was an eight-month period between the government’s last purchase of weapons and the indictment. Stinson was not placed under arrest until after the indictment. Accordingly, the sixth amendment guarantee of a speedy trial is irrelevant. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 321, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). The only issue is whether the delay violated Stinson’s rights under the due process clause of the fifth amendment. Due process is not violated simply because the defendant is prosecuted after a substantial investigative delay. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 796, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). This right is violated, however, if the delay actually prejudices the conduct of the defense and the government has “intentionally delayed to gain some tactical advantage” over the defendant or to harass him. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. at 325, 92 S.Ct. at 466.
Applying the standards set forth in Marion and Lovasco, we find no denial of due process. The delay was neither lengthy nor purposeful, and it was justified by a need to continue the investigation by following leads for several months after the purchases. Indeed, two months after the purchases, the government seized a cache of weapons at Stinson’s residence which required additional tracing. The government, therefore, is not to be faulted for refusing to seek an indictment immediately after the last purchase. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795, 97 S.Ct. 2044.
Stinson’s second claim involves the admission into evidence of the government’s surreptitious recordings of Stinson’s conversations with an informant and his conversation with a special agent. The informant and the agent were wired for sound and consented to the recordings. Stinson stresses the absence of any prior judicial authorization. The consent of a participant in each recorded conversation, however, makes this argument immaterial. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c); United States v. Bragan, 499 F.2d 1376, 1380 (4th Cir. 1974).
Several news reports quoting government agents regarding seizures of weapons caches and the strength of the government’s case appeared in major newspapers serving the Newport News area where Stinson was subsequently tried. The content of these articles indicates a disturbing willingness of government agents to interfere with the administration of justice by making self-serving statements about pending prosecutions. However, their misconduct does not entitle Stinson to relief. The record indicates that Stinson made a motion for a change of venue and withdrew the motion when the court offered to transfer the case to Norfolk from Newport News. That withdrawal, a reasonable strategic decision of Stinson’s trial counsel, waived any defect in venue. Cf. United States v. Turcotte, 515 F.2d 145, 150 n.11 (2d Cir. 1975). Moreover, a lack of prejudice was assured by the district court’s careful questioning of the jurors and their responses indicating that none of them had prior knowledge of the case. See United States v. Turcotte, 515 F.2d at 150.
The government erroneously cited 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e) instead of § 5861(d) in count VI of the indictment. Stinson, however, has shown no prejudice as a result of the error. The count alleges that Stinson knowingly possessed a firearm “which had not been registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.” This is the precise language of § 5861(d). Thus, Stinson was fully informed of the nature of the charge. The error in referring to subsection (e) rather than (d) could not have misled him. Accordingly, the error furnishes no basis for relief. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(3); see United States v. Brown, 284 F.2d 89, 90-91 (4th Cir. 1960).
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s permitting the jury to view a movie and other evidence relating to count X of the indictment, charging that Stinson engaged in the business of dealing in explosive materials. Count X was subsequently dismissed, and the court properly instructed the jury not to consider this evidence. The record does not sustain the claim that this evidence was so inflammatory that it tainted the conviction on other counts.
We agree with the district court that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and we find no merit in Stinson’s remaining contentions. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Stinson sought and obtained a seven-week continuance.

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