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:
In re UNITED STATES GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, Juan A. CID, Witness. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Antonio CID-MOLINA, a/k/a Juan Cid, et al., Defendants, Juan A. CID, Appellant.
No. 85-4271.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 30, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1985.
Douglas L. Williams, Miami, Fla., C. Michael Hill, Lafayette, La., for appellant.
Judith Lombardino, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lafayette, La., for the United States.
Before RUBIN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges, and POLOZOLA , District Judge.
District Judge of the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
Juan A. Cid appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and the court’s order that Cid comply with the subpoena by executing a consent, directed to “any bank or trust company at which I have a bank account,” for the production of bank records. His principal objection is that the compulsion offends his Fifth Amendment privilege. We affirm.
Conceding that the bank records themselves would not be protected, Cid contends that the signing of this consent has testimonial consequences, in that “he would be confirming (through the medium of the intervention of the Court) that he had (1) created an account or accounts revealed by the ‘Consent Directive’ (2) at an off-shore bank, otherwise ‘safe’ from scrutiny by the Government of the United States, and (3) had engaged in whatever transactions the records of those accounts reflected.” We disagree, because we see no disclosure, no admission and no inculpatory effect in the general language of this consent.
We follow the lead here of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Ghidoni, 732 F.2d 814 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 328, 83 L.Ed.2d 264 (1984) and the Second Circuit in United States v. Davis, 767 F.2d 1025 (2d Cir.1985). The same consent form was at issue in Ghidoni, and we agree with that court’s reasoning, which needs no repetition or enlargement.
Cid also complains that the subpoena is an abuse of the grand jury process because its purpose is solely or principally to prepare the government for trial in two pending cases. The only support for this contention is the existence of two prior indictments, one in the same district charging controlled substance offenses and the other in the Southern District of Florida charging tax offenses. The United States Attorney advises that the current grand jury is investigating Cid for his possible role in a continuing criminal enterprise and additional violations. The grand jury need not stop its investigation of an accused following an indictment. United States v. Ruppel, 666 F.2d 261, 268 (5th Cir.1982). Cid makes no showing of abuse to overcome the presumption of regularity. See Beverly v. United States, 468 F.2d 732, 743 (5th Cir.1972). The United States is not obliged to make a preliminary showing of the proper use of process in a grand jury proceeding. In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 565 F.2d 318, 320 (5th Cir.1977).
Cid contends that compelling him to sign the consent is a seizure of his person in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That argument was not made to the district court and need not be considered here, but we see no merit to it. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1972) (appearance before grand jury and compelled production of voice exemplar held not to be seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment).
AFFIRMED.
. The full text of the consent follows:
Consent Directive
I, Juan Antonio Cid-Molina or Juan Cid, of the State of Florida in the United States of America, do hereby direct any bank or trust company at which I have a bank account of any kind or at which a corporation has a bank account of any kind upon which I am authorized to draw, specifically including the Bank of Nova Scotia and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, and its officers, employees and agents, to disclose all information and deliver copies of all documents of every nature in your possession or control which relate to the said bank accounts to any attorney of the United States Department of Justice, and to give evidence relevant thereto, pursuant to an investigation being conducted by the Grand Jury for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette, Louisiana, and this shall be irrevocable authority for doing so. This direction has been executed pursuant to that certain order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in the aforesaid case, dated __This direction is intended to apply to the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law of the Cayman Islands, and shall be construed as consent with respect thereto as the same shall apply to any of the bank accounts for which I may be a relevant principal.
DATE: _
JUAN ANTONIO CID-MOLINA JUAN CID

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