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:
KELLY v. ADERHOLD, Warden.
No. 2031.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 13, 1940.
Robert Kelly, pro se.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty, and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty, both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
Robert Kelly, hereinafter called petitioner, seeks reversal of an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his discharge from the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Petitioner and two others were indicted in two counts in the United States Court for Western South Carolina. The first count charged the unlawful transportation in interstate commerce of a stolen automobile; and the second charged the receipt, concealment, storage, barter, sale or disposition of such automobile with knowledge that it had been stolen and transported in interstate commerce. Petitioner and one other defendant entered pleas of not guilty, were tried before a jury, and found guilty; petitioner was sentenced to serve a term of four years in the penitentiary; commitment issued on February 5, 1935; and petitioner began serving the sentence. On December 18, 1937, he was conditionally released on parole, and on February 15, 1938, a member of the United States Board of Paroles issued a warrant for his apprehension to coftiplete . service of the sentence on the ground that he had violated the conditions of his release. In November, 1938, petitioner was indicted in the United States Court for Western North Carolina, charged with the crime of falsely assuming and pretending to he an officer, agent or employee of the United States, in violation of section 32 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 76. He was found guilty, and on May 9, 1939, he was sentenced to serve a term of one year and one day in the penitentiary. Commitment issued, and he was delivered to respondent for service of the sentence. The warrant issued by the member of the Board of Paroles was placed in the hands of the warden as a detainer for the arrest of petitioner upon completion of service of the sentence imposed by the court in North Carolina.
The petition for the writ is directed solely to the judgment and sentence of the court in South Carolina. But at the time the petition was filed, and at the time the order was entered denying such petition, petitioner was not detained under commitment issued upon that judgment and sentence, lie was detained under commitment issued upon the judgment and sentence of the court in North Carolina, and the validity of that judgment and sentence is not assailed on any ground. The purpose of a proceeding in habeas corpus is to determine the question whether a person is being unlawfully detained. One confined in prison has no right to the writ unless he is entitled to immediate release. The writ will not issue unless he is presently restrained of his liberty without warrant of law. McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238; Reger v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 103 F.2d 825, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 549, 60 S.Ct. 79, 84 L.Ed. —; Wall v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F. 2d 865. While being detained under the judgment and sentence of one court, petitioner could not challenge by habeas corpus the validity of the judgment and sentence of another court. For that reason alone he was not entitled to the writ.
But in view of the fact that since the petition was denied, petitioner has doubtless completed service of the judgment and sentence of the court in North Carolina, and no doubt is now being detained under the commitment issued upon the judgment and sentence of the court in South Carolina, it is. deemed expedient to determine the question presented in respect of the validity of that judgment and sentence. It is challenged solely on the ground that petitioner was denied the benefit of the, assistance of counsel in the trial of the case. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the. United States guarantees one charged with a crime the right to have the aid of counsel in his defense. But the right is personal, and a defendant may waive it provided it is waived intelligently, understandingly, and in a competent manner. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; McDonald v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 943. And its waiver in that manner will ordinarily be implied where the accused appears in court without counsel and fails to request or indicate in any manner a desire that counsel be assigned to assist him. Buckner v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 105 F.2d 396, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 553, 60 S.Ct. 99, 84 L.Ed.-. Here the court expressly found that petitioner did freely, voluntarily, intelligently and competently waive his right to the assistance of counsel. The finding is supported by substantial evidence, and is not clearly erroneous. It therefore cannot be overturned on appeal. Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
The order denying the petition for the writ 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