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:
Sylvester GAVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H. Gary WELLS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 87-1864.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 19, 1990.
Sylvester Gavin, Muskegon, Mich., pro se.
Edgar L. Church, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Lansing, Mich., for respondent-appellee.
Before MILBURN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
BOGGS, Circuit Judge.
This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2425, 104 L.Ed.2d 983. This court originally affirmed the district court’s denial of Gavin’s habeas corpus petition, which attacked judgments of conviction in 1955 for breaking and entering and in 1970 for first degree murder. He is presently incarcerated for the 1970 conviction. The Supreme Court remanded for us to consider the case in light of its opinion in Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). We have reviewed that decision and received supplemental briefs of the parties.
Gavin raises three primary contentions on appeal, none of which has merit in light of Maleng. First, he asserts that his 1955 conviction violated the United States Constitution. This conviction, however, was fully served prior to Gavin’s filing of this habeas corpus petition. We therefore have no jurisdiction to consider this argument. Maleng, 109 S.Ct. at 1926.
Second, Gavin suggests that his 1955 conviction enhanced the sentence imposed for his 1970 first degree murder conviction. We disagree. Michigan law applicable to Gavin’s first degree murder conviction provided for a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. MCL 750.316. Given the mandatory nature of the 1970 sentence, his 1955 conviction cannot in any sense have “enhanced” this sentence.
Only an actual enhancement of the 1970 sentence based on the 1955 conviction would implicate the question left unanswered in Maleng: “the extent to which [an earlier] conviction ... may be subject to challenge in the attack upon [later] sentences which it was used to enhance.” 109 S.Ct. at 1927. Accordingly, Gavin may not attack the 1970 conviction for which he is presently incarcerated by means of a challenge to the 1955 conviction. See Crank v. Duckworth, 905 F.2d 1090, 1091 (7th Cir.1990).
Third, Gavin asserts that the parole board’s consideration of his allegedly invalid 1955 conviction resulted in the assignment of a discretionary parole review date five years later than would have been assigned without consideration of his conviction. It is clear that state prisoners have no federal constitutional right to parole. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103-04, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). At most, Gavin asserts that the state parole board violated a state procedural rule in considering his allegedly invalid 1955 conviction, a claim that does not rise to federal constitutional proportions. See Wallace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545, 549 (11th Cir.1983). Thus, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court dismissing Gavin’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
. Technically, this review is not for the purpose of granting parole, but rather is a review for the purpose of deciding whether to recommend to the Governor that he commute the sentence.

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