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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Enrique PINEDA-CHINCHILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 83-3148
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1983.
Certiorari Denied Nov. 7,1983.
See 104 S.Ct. 402.
Virginia Laughlin Schlueter, Asst. Federal Public Defender, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.
John P. Volz, U.S. Atty., Thomas L. Watson, Harry W. McSherry, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A United States customs agent observed an automobile being driven in an erratic manner in the vicinity of the Napoleon Avenue “B” wharf in New Orleans, Louisiana. Suspecting the driver to be intoxicated, the agent stopped the vehicle and ran a license check. He learned that the car had been reported stolen, and arrested the driver and two passengers. An investigation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service revealed that one of the passengers, Julio Enrique Pineda-Chinchilla, had been deported from the United States in 1977 and was present in the country without having acquired the proper authorization from the Attorney General.
Pineda-Chinchilla was charged with illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He moved the federal district court to suppress the “nonexistence of proper authorization to be in the United States.” The motion was denied, and Pineda-Chinchilla was convicted. He presents a single issue on appeal: If an illegal arrest brings to the attention of authorities the fact that an individual is present in the United States and a subsequent check of independently created and maintained records indicates that the individual is an illegal alien, must the independent government records be suppressed as the product of the illegal arrest because they are “the fruit of the poisonous tree”? We answer this question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the district court.
For present purposes, we assume that Pineda-Chinchilla’s arrest was illegal. Pineda-Chinchilla does not allege that his belongings or his person were illegally searched. An illegal arrest, without more, is neither a bar to subsequent prosecution nor a defense to a valid conviction. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474,100 S.Ct. 1244, 1251, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); Men Keng Chang v. Jiugni, 669 F.2d 275, 279 (5th Cir.1982). His sole contention is that because his illegal arrest necessarily revealed his identity and presence at the scene, the arrest led the government to records indicating the “non-existence of proper authorization to be in the United States.” Therefore, he argues, those independent “status” records must be suppressed.
Pineda-Chinchilla’s contention is meritless. Pineda-Chinchilla has no possessory or proprietary interest in the INS file or the documentary information contained in that file. Since he has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the file, he has no standing to challenge its introduction into evidence. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98,104,100 S.Ct. 2556,2561, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); United States v. Baldwin, 691 F.2d 718, 721 (5th Cir.1982).
Pineda-Chinchilla’s argument is without merit. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. The Ninth Circuit has held that “there is no sanction to be applied when an illegal arrest only leads to discovery of the man’s identity and that merely leads to the official file or other independent evidence.” Hoonsilapa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 575 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir.1978), modified on other grounds, 586 F.2d 755 (1978). See also United States v. Orozco-Rico, 589 F.2d 433, 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 1518, 59 L.Ed.2d 783 (1978); United States v. Cella, 568 F.2d 1266,1285-86 (9th Cir.1977). But see Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969) (fingerprints are suppressible evidence). Because we hold that Pineda-Chinchilla lacked standing to assert fourth amendment rights with respect to the files, we neither adopt nor reject the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit.

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