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:
Theodore WAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6305.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
March 30, 1960.
Donald W. Madole, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Charles M. Stoddard, Denver, Colo., Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Colorado (Donald G. Brotzman, U. S. Atty., Boulder, Colo., District of Colorado, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges, and SAVAGE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Way was convicted of stealing money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) from a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and was sentenced to a term of three years. Upon appeal to this court his conviction was affirmed. Way v. United States, 10 Cir., 268 F.2d 785. Thereafter he applied under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a vacation of sentence. This appeal is from the denial of that application.
Way first asserts that evidence secured by an unlawful search was improperly admitted at his trial. The trial court expressly found that the search was lawful and the evidence properly admitted. Be that as it may, the reception of such evidence was not objected to at the trial and no point thereof was made in the subsequent appeal. This objection may not be raised for the first time in a proceeding under Section 2255.
The next contention is that the conviction was secured upon evidence establishing entrapment which entitled Way to an acquittal. This defense was not raised in either the trial court or in the appeal. A motion under Section 2255 to vacate a sentence is a collateral proceeding in which errors in procedure on the initial trial of the case are not open for review. Here the defense of entrapment is raised for the first time in this Section 2255 proceeding and, hence, comes too late.
The last point is that Way did not have effective representation of counsel because such counsel in the trial court did not raise the aforementioned issues. The issue of ineffective counsel was not raised by the motion to vacate and was not considered by the trial court. It cannot now be raised for the first time on appeal. The court notes that the retained trial counsel was a lawyer experienced in criminal trials. He may have had adequate reason for failing to raise these points. In any event if appropriate motions had been made, the propriety of the denial could not be questioned in a Section 2255 proceeding.
Affirmed.
. Barber v. United States, 10 Cir., 197 F.2d 815, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 857, 73 S.Ct. 94, 97 L.Ed. 665, and cases cited in footnote 1.
. Horne v. United States, 5 Cir., 264 F.2d 40, certiorari denied 360 U.S. 934, 79 S.Ct. 1460, 3 L.Ed.2d 1549.
. Stanley v. United States, 9 Cir., 239 F.2d 765.
. It appears from the briefs that Way was represented by retained counsel at the trial and appointed counsel in the appeal.
. Plummer v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 211, 260 F.2d 729.
. See Barber v. United States, 10 Cir., 227 F.2d 431.
. White v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 235 F.2d 221.

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