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. Kenneth L. SCHOMBURG, Defendant-Appellant (Two Cases).
Nos. 90-10104, 90-10138.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 1991.
Decided April 1, 1991.
Daniel M. Davis, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
R. Steven Lapham, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FLETCHER, NORRIS and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge:
Appellant pled guilty to establishing drug manufacturing operations in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856. Before he was sentenced, he jumped bail. He was later apprehended and charged with failure to appear in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 30 months for each offense. He appeals the calculation of both sentences.
I
Appellant first questions his sentence for failure to appear, arguing that it involved double-counting of his offense for establishing manufacturing operations. Under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6, appellant’s offense level for failure to appear is increased by nine levels if the offense in respect to which the defendant failed to appear is punishable by a term of imprisonment of fifteen years or more. Establishing drug manufacturing operations carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years, so appellant’s offense level for failure to appear was increased by nine. The conviction for establishing manufacturing operations was also used in calculating appellant’s criminal history score, raising it by three points and placing him in category V rather than category IV.
Appellant contends that his conviction for establishing manufacturing operations should not have been used in calculating his criminal history score because it was already used in determining his offense level. Appellant points to guideline language that for a prior sentence to count toward his criminal history score, it may not involve conduct that is “part of the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a). Because he could not have been convicted of failing to appear unless there were charges against him, appellant contends that the offense of establishing a manufacturing operation was part of the offense of failing to appear.
Appellant’s interpretation of this guideline language is untenable. As the case law illustrates, appellant need not have been convicted of the manufacturing charge in order to have been convicted of the failure to appear. The offenses are separate and there was no double counting.
Although no authority in this circuit is directly on point, United States v. Nelson, 919 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir.1990), is instructive. Nelson involved a defendant who failed to appear for a suppression hearing in a case in which he was charged with conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. In his challenge to his sentence for failure to appear, we upheld the enhancement of his offense level under 2J1.6 for the methamphetamine charge even though he was acquitted of it. Nelson illustrates, then, that the enhancement of the offense level is separate from the criminal history score. The enhancement of the offense level reflects the fact that it is a greater offense to fail to appear when one is called to answer more serious charges than when one is called to answer less serious charges. Nelson, 919 F.2d at 1384. The criminal history score, by contrast, reflects one’s failure to learn from past mistakes. The “failure to appear” offense level enhancement is appropriate whenever one is charged with a serious crime; the criminal history score increase is appropriate whenever one is convicted. In this case, then, the district court did not err in using appellant’s conviction for establishing drug manufacturing operations both to increase the offense level and to increase the criminal history score. Under Nelson, the offense level enhancement would have been appropriate even if appellant had been charged but not convicted of the manufacturing offense. The additional use of the offense to raise his criminal history score reflects the additional fact that he was convicted.
II
Appellant also challenges the calculation of his criminal history score for both the sentence for establishing a drug manufacturing operation and for the sentence for failure to appear. He argues that in the calculation of both sentences he mistakenly received two points instead of one point for a prior sentence of sixty days in county jail in which the court recommended the sentence be served on a weekend work project. Under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(b), a prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty-days is given two points, but under § 4Al.l(c), a prior sentence not involving imprisonment receives only one point. Appellant argues that the presentence report erred in considering the weekend work project to be a sentence of imprisonment. According to appellant’s objections to the presentence report, the weekend work project required appellant to work seven hours each Saturday and Sunday under the supervision of the Sacramento County Sheriffs Office, but he was not locked up or in custody.
The guidelines send rather contradictory messages as to the proper calculation of this kind of sentence. § 4A1.2(b) defines sentence of imprisonment as “a sentence of incarceration.” Generally, the length of the sentence is determined by “the maximum sentence imposed” rather than by the actual time served. Id., Application Note 2. There are exceptions to this rule, however. Suspended sentences are given only one point under § 4Al.l(e), and if part of the sentence is suspended, the length of the sentence is determined by the portion not suspended. § 4A1.2(b)(2). Application Note 2 reads:
Sentences of Imprisonment. To qualify as a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant must have actually served a period of imprisonment on such sentence (or, if the defendant escaped, would have served time). See §§ 4A1.2(a)(3) and (b)(2). For the purposes of applying § 4Al.l(a), (b), or (c), the length of a sentence of imprisonment is the stated maximum. That is, criminal history points are based on the sentence pronounced, not the length of time actually served. See § 41.2(b)(1) and (2). A sentence of probation is to be treated as a sentence under § 4Al.l(c) unless a condition of probation requiring imprisonment of at least sixty days was imposed.
Appellant relies on the language in the application note that “[t]o qualify as a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant must have actually served a period of imprisonment on such sentence.” He argues that because he was never in custody on the 60-day sentence, it should not be counted as a sentence of imprisonment.
As the government points out, however, appellant’s eligibility for the weekend work project was ultimately determined by the Deputy Sheriff, who could have imprisoned appellant or not at his discretion. The court’s recommendation of the work project did not bind the Sheriff. Thus, the sentence, as pronounced by the court at the outset, was a sentence of imprisonment subject to alteration at the Sheriff’s discretion. See United States v. Shinners, 892 F.2d 742, 743 (8th Cir.1990) (defendant sentenced to two and one-half years paroled after five months: length of the prior sentence two and one-half years for purposes of 4A1.1). In sum, the district court did not err in calculating the criminal history points for appellant’s prior sentence.
AFFIRMED.
. Appellant’s reliance on United States v. Lee, 887 F.2d 888 (8th Cir.1989) and United States v. Clark, 711 F.Supp. 736 (S.D.N.Y.1989) is misplaced. Lee held that one’s offense level for failing to appear to serve a sentence should be calculated on the basis of the actual sentence given, not on the basis of the statutory maximum. It is simply not relevant; appellant failed to appear before he was sentenced. Thus, his offense level could not have been calculated on the basis of his actual sentence. United States v. Clark, the other case on which appellant relies, was disapproved by United States v. Wright, 891 F.2d 209, 211 n. 1 (9th Cir.1989).

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