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. Homard P. DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14404.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
May 24, 1961.
John H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn. (William P. Crewe, Asst. Regional Counsel I. R. S., Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for appellee.
William E. Badgett, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.
Before McALLISTER, CECIL and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
CECIL, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Homard P. Dorsey from a verdict and judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division.
The appellant, together with eight other defendants, was indicted under section 371 of Title 18 U.S.C. for conspiracy to violate sections 5174, 5179 and 5601(a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended 26 U.S.C. §§ 5174, 5179, 5601 (a) (1). The violation involves the illegal manufacture, possession, transportation and sale of spirituous liquors. The facts constituting the offense are fully and specifically set forth in the indictment.
It is claimed on behalf of the appellant that there is not substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment based thereon. A reading of the record discloses that no motion for •acquittal was made by counsel for Hom-ard P. Dorsey either at the close of the government’s case in chief or at the conclusion of all of the evidence.
The question presented is purely one of fact. Upon reading the entire record and upon consideration of the evidence relating to Homard P. Dorsey, as a whole, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding that Homard P. Dorsey was a party to the conspiracy as averred in the indictment and that he was guilty as charged.
Other questions raised relate to the admission of testimony. On two occasions the trial judge admitted conversations of alleged co-conspirators to the effect that the appellant Dorsey would not get a watchman for them. The record discloses that no objections were made to the admission of this testimony.
In the first instance, counsel for Dorsey said: “Now, of course, your Honor will instruct the jury as to what anybody said, the men that were present.”
Thereupon the Court instructed the jury as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury, this alleged statement, alleged to be made by these men, will not be considered except with respect to their cases. Unless the jury finds, first, there was a conspiracy and, second, that these statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. If the jury so finds, then the jury will consider the alleged statement with respect to all of the defendants.”
The witness answered and no further question was raised.
The instruction of the trial judge, as quoted above, is a clear and correct statement of the law of conspiracy. Continental Baking Company v. United States, 6 Cir., 281 F.2d 137,152; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 74, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.
“It is a basic premise of our jury system that the court states the law to the jury and that the jury applies that law to the facts as the jury finds them. Unless we proceed on the basis that the jury will follow the court’s instructions where those instructions are clear and the circumstances are such that the jury can' reasonably be expected to follow them, the jury system makes little sense. Based on faith that the jury will endeavor to follow the court’s instructions, our system of jury trial has produced one of the most valuable and practical mechanisms in human experience for dispensing substantial justice.” Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 242, 77 S.Ct. 294, 300, 1 L.Ed.2d 278. See also: Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 95, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101.
The trial judge instructed the jury on the subject of the weight to be given to the testimony of an accomplice. No accomplices testified on behalf of the government and the appellant charges that this is reversible error.
Counsel for the appellant Dorsey made neither specific nor general objections to the charge of the court. In accordance with Rule 30 of the Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., no objection to the charge can now be raised on appeal.
This is not such a “plain error” as to warrant the consideration of this Court, without objection, and we are of the opinion that it was not prejudicial to the appellant. Rule 52, Federal Rules Criminal Procedure.
The judgment of the District Court will be 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