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. Edgar QUAN-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-10074.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1991.
Decided April 4, 1991.
Robert J. McWhirter, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
Stanley Patched, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TANG, BOOCHEVER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
OVERVIEW
TANG, Circuit Judge:
Edgar Quan-Guerra was found guilty of possessing a weapon in prison. The district court fined Quan-Guer-ra $500. Quan-Guerra appeals his fine. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Edgar Quan-Guerra was serving time in prison when he was found in possession of a shank. After the jury convicted him for this unlawful possession, the district court sentenced him according to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found that Quan-Guerra was “financially unable to pay a fine within the guideline range, but that he would be financially able to pay a lesser fine.” The court fined Quan-Guerra $500.
Quan-Guerra informed the probation officer, in connection with the presentence report, that he had no assets or liabilities. He also informed the probation officer that his income was limited to his salary from prison employment.
On September 25, 1989, Quan-Guerra filled out a financial affidavit to secure the services of the public defender. In it he stated he had no assets, no debts, and was not employed. Quan-Guerra argues that the district court erred in assessing a $500 fine.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the legality of a criminal sentence de novo. United States v. Rafferty, 911 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir.1990). However, we “give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.1990). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Howard, 894 F.2d at 1087.
DISCUSSION
Quan-Guerra argues that the fine is inappropriate because no evidence on the record demonstrates his ability to pay the fine. When the record demonstrates unequivocally that the defendant is indigent, the district court is required to determine whether the defendant has the ability to pay any fine which might be imposed. United States v. Seminole, 882 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1989). Where the record is silent as to the defendant’s earning capacity, this court will remand to the district court for this determination. Id. Further, our precedent and the Sentencing Guidelines establish that the defendant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that he cannot pay the fine imposed by the court. United States v. Rafferty, 911 F.2d at 232.
Here, the district court found that Quan-Guerra does not have the ability to pay the $3,000 to $30,000 fine mandated by the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that Quan-Guerra will be able to pay a lesser fine of $500. Evidence in the record supports this finding. The presen-tence report establishes that Quan-Guerra has no debts and has prison employment. No impediment to his earning capacity is shown. Quan-Guerra presented no evidence that he would not be able to pay a $500 fine whereas the district court’s decision is supported by the record. He did not meet his burden of proving that he could not pay the fine ordered or is likely to become unable to pay, over a period of time, the fine ordered. The district court did not err in assessing the $500 fine.
Relying on United States v. Walker, 900 F.2d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir.1990), Quan-Guerra asserts that the district court must make findings on the record which demonstrate that the sentencing court has taken into account all the factors that, in assessing a fine, the court is required to take into consideration under the Guidelines. Our review of the record satisfies us that the district court considered all required factors in evaluating Quan-Guerra’s ability to pay this fine. See Guideline § 5E1.2(d). Moreover, Quan-Guerra has failed to meet his burden of establishing his inability presently to pay the fine or that he is likely to become unable to pay all or part of the fine over a period of time. See Guideline § 5E1.2(f).
CONCLUSION
The district court made the required finding that Quan-Guerra had the ability to pay the $500 fine imposed. That finding is supported by the record.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. Quan-Guerra erroneously focuses solely on the current state of his assets. However, Quan-Guerra’s future earning capacity is relevant to the district court’s inquiry as to his ability to pay the fine. See Guideline §§ 5E1.2(d)(2) and 5E1.2(f). Quan-Guerra has not established that his future income will be insufficient to pay the fine of $500.

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