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:
Peyton Ralph RECH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 10127.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
May 13, 1969.
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1969.
Fred W. Vondy, Denver, Colo. (Anthony L. Worth, Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellant.
Richard T. Spriggs, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty. for Dist. of Colorado, was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before WARREN L. JONES, BREITENSTEIN and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
The defendant was charged in a three-count indictment with passing counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve Notes. The j'ury found him guilty on all counts and he appeals from the j'udgment of sentence.
Within a short period of time on the early afternoon of June 23, 1967, a man passed three counterfeit bills, each in a different store at a Denver shopping center. In every instance he made a small purchase and received change. The incidents were promptly reported to Secret Service agents.
The thrust of the appeal is that the defendant was prejudiced by pretrial identification of photographs in violation of the principles stated in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247. The Court there said, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971:
x x we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis-identification.”
Positive courtroom identification was made by six witnesses. Three of these, Cordova, Walker, and Lenoeh, made positive pretrial identification by photograph. One, Jake, made a tentative pretrial identification by photograph. Two, Edmunson and Jones, had not seen photographs and had made no pretrial identification. - The number of photographs shown to the various witnesses is uncertain. Their estimates ran from four or five to “hundreds.” The manner of exhibition of the photographs is described in a memorandum signed by the attorneys for the parties and made in connection with a defense motion to produce. It is stated that a Secret Service agent
“assembled and presented photographs in the usual and customary manner, consisting of approximately six photographs of male persons the approximate age and physical description of the Defendant in conformity to the estimated age and physical description furnished by witnesses. Reassembly of the specific spread is impossible.”
The times of the displays of the photographs covered a period from a couple of days after the transactions to about two months thereafter. The displays took place in the Secret Service office, in the stores, and once in the home of a witness. No two witnesses viewed the pictures at the same time.
The first witness to make an identification was Cordova, a clerk in a Woolworth store. A Secret Service agent then prepared a criminal complaint which was filed with a United States Commissioner on July 14, 1967. The defendant was arrested on the next day at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and was then photographed. This picture was identified positively by Cordova, Walker, and Lenoeh.
The criminal complaint was later dismissed. The order of dismissal bears the notation “Parole revocation proceedings instituted by Nebraska authorities.” Defendant was in a Denver jail for an unstated period but no line-up was conducted. The indictment was returned October 26, 1967.
Of the clerks who received the bills, Cordova of Woolworths and Walker of Republic Drug made positive photograph identification, and Jake of Grants Store made a tentative identification. Two witnesses, Lenoeh and Jones, testified that they saw the defendant in Wool-worths make a small purchase and pay for it with a $20 bill, and that shortly thereafter they saw him make a small purchase at Republic Drug and pay for it with a $20 bill. Lenoeh made a pretrial identification of a photograph. Jones was shown no photographs before the trial. Edmunson, a pharmacist at Republic, said that she pointed out an article desired by the defendant. She made a courtroom identification but had not seen photographs before trial. No agent made any improper suggestions to any of the witnesses in the display of the photographs.
The defendant complains of the use of the 1967 Council Bluffs picture for identification purposes. Prior to that picture the only identification had been by Cordova from a 1965 photograph. The argument is that it was wrong to make the arrest to obtain the picture. No attack is made on the criminal complaint which was issued on the basis of Cordova’s identification. This is not a dragnet case like Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676. Here the detention was pursuant to a criminal complaint made on probable cause. There was no “testimonial compulsion upon or enforced communication by the accused.” See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1832, 16 L.Ed.2d 908.
The argument that the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by the out-of-court identification of photographs in the absence of counsel is without merit. In McGee v. United States, 10 Cir., 402 F.2d 434, 436, we held that the line-up decision, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, did not apply to out-of-court identification of photographs.
The cross-examination of the witnesses who made the pretrial identifications was full and complete. It developed discrepancies in the description of the man who passed the bills but did not cause any witness to doubt the identification made. There is no evidence that a Secret Service agent suggested which pictures were of anyone under investigation. The testimony of Lenoch and Jones, who saw the defendant carry on similar transactions in two stores within a short period of time, is significant. We conclude that, in view of the entire record, there is little chance that the methods used were impermissibly suggestive and that there is not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384-385, 88 S.Ct. 967.
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