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:
BRIDGES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 12607.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 1952.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1952.
Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Dec. 29, 1952.
Gladstein, Andersen & Leonard, Norman Leonard, Vincent W. Hallinan, James Martin Maclnnis, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Chauncey Tramutolo, U. S. Atty., Robert B. McMillan, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal. (James M. Mclnerney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Beatrice Rosenberg, Carl H. Imlay, John R. Wilkins, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington,' D. C., John P. Boyd, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, BONE, . and POPE, Circuit Judges.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Following the sentencing of Harry Renton Bridges in the case appealed under number 12,597, this day decided, the court order the revocation of Harry Renton Bridges’ naturalization. For full statement of facts and law pertinent to this case see opinion in case to which reference has just been made, Bridges v. United States of America, 9 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 811.
The trial court ordered Bridges’ naturalization revoked under the provisions of Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(e) which reads in part as follows:
“(e) When a person shall be convicted under this chapter of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke, set aside, and declare void the final order admitting such person to citizenship, and shall declare the certificate of naturalization of such person be canceled. * íj* ifc »
As the Supreme Court said in Knauer v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 654, 658, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 1307, 90 L.Ed. 1500:
“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency’.”
However, since naturalization is a privilege which Congress may extend or deny to aliens, where it was obtained through fraud on the prerequisites set forth by Congress, Congress possesses and has exercised its power under the Constitution to revoke such fraudulently obtained citizenship.
In Schneiderman v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525, and Knauer v. United States, supra, the Supreme Court reversed, the orders revoking citizenship under Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(a) which provides for such revocation in a civil action where naturalization has been illegally procured. The Supreme Court reversed for the reason that the government had not sustained its burden under Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(a) of proving that the naturalization had been illegally procured. However, there is no such infirmity in the instant revocation of Bridges’ naturalization. For that was done under the terms of Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(e), since Bridges had been “convicted under this chapter of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law”.
Appellant is mistaken in his contention that he is not “convicted” until all appellate remedies have been exhausted. As the Supreme Court said in Berman v. United States, 1937, 302 U.S. 211, 213, 58 S.Ct. 164, 166, 82 L.Ed. 204,
“Petitioner stands a convicted felon and’unless the judgment against him is vacated or reversed he is subject to all the disabilities flowing from such a judgment.”
Secondly, the revocation under § 738(e) is meant to be a part of the criminal proceedings and not a separate proceeding. This is indicated by the language of the subsection itself which states that when a person is convicted of obtaining citizenship by fraud, his citizenship' shall “thereupon” be revoked in the same court where he was convicted. However, since this matter reaches us under another case number, we have treated it by a separate opinion.
Appellant further contends that the revocation of his citizenship did not literally comply with the language of § 738(e) in that he had not been convicted under “this chapter”, i. e., Chapter 11, Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738, for the reason that, although the indictment was framed within the language of Chapter 11, Title 8 U.S.C. § 746(a) (1), that section had been repealed in 1948 prior to his indictment and conviction, and had been replaced by Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1015 (a). Appellant’s argument on this point is not convincing, for the 1948 revising Act, 62 Sta-t. 683, 862, § 21, 18 U.S.C.A. note preceding section 1, which repealed the penal provisions of the Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S.C.A. and consolidated all penal provisions in Title 18 U.S.C., expressly saved “[a]ny rights or liabilities now existing under such sections or parts thereof [which have been repealed]”. Bridges was in fact indicted and convicted for a violation of Chapter 11, Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 746 (a) (1) which was in effect in 1945.
And, finally, appellant argues that he did not .“knowingly” procure naturalization in violation of law, and therefore all of the elements necessary for the revocation of citizenship under Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(e) were not present. All the elements of knowledge are present in the verdict of guilt and no error was committed in or during the cancellation and revocation of Mr. Bridges’ citizenship.
Affirmed.
. U.S.C.A. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4.

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