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:
ADERHOLD, Warden, v. ASHLOCK.
No. 1660.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 22, 1938.
Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
Charles Ashlock was charged by indictment returned in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky with a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 692, now 26 U.S.C.A. § 1043. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years from November 13, 1933. On June 21, 1935, he was conditionally released from the Penitentiary Annex, at Leavenworth, Kansas, by .the United State Parole Board. '
. , , , , . ,. , Thereafter, he was charged by indictment returned m the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia with a violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act. He pleaded guilty to the charge and on September 18, 1935, he was sentenced to serve k term of three years in the United States Penitentiary Annex, at Leavenworth, Kansas. He was delivered to the Penitentiary Annex on September 28, 1935.
A warrant for his arrest, based on a violation of his parole was issued, and upon completion of his second sentence he was arrested and recommitted to the Penitentiary Annex to serve the unexpired portion of his first sentence.
Ashlock filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, predicated on the contention that upon his commitment to the penitentiary on the second sentence, hé immediately began service of the unexpired term of his first sentence and that both sentences had been fully served '
The trial court sustained Ashiock’s contention and entered its judgment discharging him'from custody.
The Warden has appealed,
Section 723c, 18 U.S.C.A., reads in part as follows:
“The Board of Parole * * * or any member thereof, shall have the exclusive authority to issue warrants for the retaking of any United States prisoner who has vio!ated. his' Parole; The ^expired term of imprisonment of any such prisoner shall be-g¡¡n run fr0m the date he is returned to the institution, and the time the prisoner was on parole shall not diminish the time he was originally sentenced to serve.”
in Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359, 362, 363, 58 S.Ct. 872, 873, 82 L.Ed. 1399, 116 A. L.R. 808, the Supreme Court of the United States in construing the above provision in connection with facts identical with those presented here, said:
. . . ro Obviously, this provision [Sec. 723c,. suPra^ does ?ot require that a parole violator s onSmal> unexpired sentence shall be-gm to run from the date he is imprisoned for a new and separate offense. It can only refer t0 reimprisonment on the original sentence under order of the paroIe Board.
“Since service of the original sentence was interrupted by parole violation, the full term of that sentence has not been com-pleted. Just as respondent’s own misconduct (parole violation) has prevented com-pletion of the original sentence, so has it continued the authority of the board over respondent until that sentence is completed and expb es. * * *
“If the parole laws should be construed as respondent contends, parole might be more reluctantly granted, contrary to the broad humane purpose of Congress to grant relief from imprisonment to deserving prisoners,
“Respondents have not completed servjce 0£ Bieir original sentences and were not entitled to realese.”
. .... "b'b.e cause is reversed with instructions vacate the order of discharge, to order *-b.at Ashlock be redelivered to the custody of the Warden, and to issue and execute suc,h writ °r PTOCtsJ as. may be necessary t0 make sudl order effectlve’
Reversed.

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