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. Salvatore PETRELLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 798, Docket 82-1342.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Feb. 8, 1983.
Decided May 11, 1983.
Jeffrey B. Meller, Burlington, Vt., for defendant-appellant.
George W.F. Cook, U.S. Atty., D.Vt., Rut-land, Vt., George J. Terwilliger, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., P. Scott McGee, Asst. U.S. Atty., Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUMBARD and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges, and ZAMPANO, District Judge.
Honorable Robert C. Zampano, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
ZAMPANO, District Judge:
The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether a defendant, indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for unlawful reentry into this country after deportation, may challenge the validity of the original order of deportation as a defense to the prosecution. We conclude that the underlying deportation is not subject to collateral attack in a § 1326 criminal proceeding and we therefore affirm appellant’s conviction.
I
Appellant, Salvatore Petrella, was admitted to the United States in 1978 as a visitor to inspect and study a training program for machine tool operators in Billerica, Massachusetts. Petrella decided to enroll in the program and a one-year trainee visa was issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). When the visa expired, he failed to depart voluntarily and a deportation warrant issued. With the aid of retained counsel, who represented him before the INS Petrella delayed his departure from the United States for an additional three years. Finally, a deportation order was issued, from which no appeal for judicial review was perfected. On April 19, 1982, Petrella was arrested and deported to Italy.
Approximately a month later, Petrella flew from Italy to Canada and unsuccessfully attempted to enter this country at Niagara Falls. Undaunted, he again attempted to cross the border at Highgate Springs, Vermont on May 23, 1982. In response to routine questions by Immigration Inspectors, Petrella stated he was an United States Citizen and produced a Social Security Card and a Massachusetts driver’s license to support his claim. A search of his automobile yielded an Italian passport and, after further questioning, he was arrested and charged with willfully making a false claim of citizenship, 18 U.S.C. § 911, and with attempting to enter the United States without authorization after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Prior to trial, Petrella moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the 1979 deportation proceedings did not comport with due process. The District Court refused to review the merits of the deportation and denied the motion. On July 21,1982, a jury found appellant guilty on both charges.
II
In United States v. Spector, 343 U.S. 169, 172-73, 72 S.Ct. 591, 593-594, 96 L.Ed. 863 (1952), the Supreme Court reserved decision on whether a defendant may relitigate the issue of original deportability in a criminal prosecution in which the prior deportation is an element of the offense. The courts of appeals that have addressed the question in the context of a § 1326 prosecution are divided as to whether collateral attacks are permissible.
The Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have approved varying degrees of trial court review of the underlying deportation. See, e.g., United States v. Rosal-Aguilar, 652 F.2d 721, 722-23 (7 Cir.1981) (government must prove the deportation was “based on a valid legal predicate and obtained according to law”); United States v. Rangel-Gonzales, 617 F.2d 529, 530 (9 Cir.1980) (defendant entitled to demonstrate that a violation of an INS regulation prejudiced a protected interest); United States v. Bowles, 331 F.2d 742, 750 (3 Cir.1964) (defendant permitted to show there was no factual or legal basis for his deportation).
The Eighth Circuit, while indicating that a limited pretrial review of the deportation hearing may be permissible in some circumstances, Hernandez-Uribe v. United States, 515 F.2d 20, 22 (8 Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1057, 96 S.Ct. 791, 46 L.Ed.2d 647 (1976), has not squarely addressed the question. See United States v. Cabrera, 650 F.2d 942, 943 (8 Cir.1981).
The Fifth Circuit, after careful analysis of the elaborate scheme of administrative and judicial review already available to an alien under other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), has determined that Congress intended to bar collateral attacks on deportation orders in § 1326 prosecutions. United States v. De La Cruz-Sepulveda, 656 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5 Cir.1981); United States v. Gonzalez-Parra, 438 F.2d 694, 697 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1010, 91 S.Ct. 2196, 29 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971). The Tenth Circuit, in Arriaga-Ramirez v. United States, 325 F.2d 857, 859 (10 Cir.1963), has also rejected collateral review but with little supporting analysis.
Ill
Our analysis begins with the language of the unlawful reentry statute which provides in relevant part: “Any alien who — (1) has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported, and thereafter (2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States ... shall be guilty of a felony .... ” 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The lack of any express reference to the validity of the deportation or of the arrest indicates that the statute seeks to punish the unauthorized reentry of an alien previously deported, regardless of whether the deportation was “lawful.”
We next examine the relevant provisions of the INA relating to judicial review of deportation orders. There are three “sole and exclusive” avenues for judicial intervention available to an alien who has exhausted his administrative remedies under the immigration laws and has not yet departed the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. First, he may obtain civil judicial review of the rulings of the Board of Immigration Appeals in the federal courts of appeals if he petitions for review within six months of the date of the deportation order. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Second, if he is in custody pursuant to the deportation order, he is entitled to habeas corpus review. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(9). Third, in a criminal prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) (willful failure to depart) or under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (violation of supervisory regulations), the defendant may obtain pretrial judicial review. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(6).
Thus, neither the statute on its face nor the statutory scheme for review of deportation orders authorizes a challenge to the original deportation. We conclude, therefore, that Congress intended to bar collateral attacks in § 1326 prosecutions.
This conclusion is fortified by our discussion of the issue in question in United States v. Pereira, 574 F.2d 103 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 847, 99 S.Ct. 145, 58 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978). In that § 1326 prosecution, the defendant had been convicted of three counts of burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of escape from imprisonment. He was ordered deported on several occasions, and had previously been convicted of an illegal reentry violation. We found the defendant’s continuing and flagrant disregard of the immigration laws so egregious that we affirmed his conviction on the facts, expressly reserving decision on whether defendants in other situations could collaterally attack the underlying deportation on which a § 1326 prosecution is based. In doing so, however, we expressed the view that the statutory deportation procedures “may not envision judicial review of deportation orders in cases like that at bar,” 574 F.2d at 105 n. 4. See also United States v. Espinoza-Soto, 476 F.Supp. 364, 366 (E.D.N.Y.1979), aff’d, 633 F.2d 207 (2 Cir.1980); United States v. Mohammed, 372 F.Supp. 1048, 1049 (S.D.N.Y.1973).
Apart from the question of whether the statutory scheme authorizes collateral attack, Petrella argues that an agency determination not subjected to judicial review may not, under the due process clause, conclusively establish an element of a criminal offense. He accordingly argues that he has a constitutional right to judicial review of the deportation order. We, however, agree with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in United States v. Gonzalez-Parra, 438 F.2d 694, 697-99 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1010, 91 S.Ct. 2196, 29 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971), wherein the court held that there is no constitutional right to collateral attack in a § 1326 prosecution. See United States v. Pereira, 574 F.2d at 106 n. 7.
Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction is affirmed.
. Any alien who—
(1) has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously excluded and deported, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act,
shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment of not more than two years, or by fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
. We believe this situation is analogous to a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 751 for escape from imprisonment brought against a defendant serving a sentence which is claimed to be invalid. It has been uniformly held in the § 751 proceedings that a defendant may not contest the propriety of the underlying conviction. See United States v. Pereira, 574 F.2d 103, 106 n. 6 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 847, 99 S.Ct. 145, 58 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978) and cases cited therein.
. We are also loathe to add a further avenue of attack on deportation orders, in view of the formidable administrative and judicial arsenal available to litigants seeking review of such orders. The unconscionable delays in the deportation process that can be accomplished through imaginative “use” of the immigration laws is demonstrated by several cases in this Circuit. See, e.g., Lok v. INS, 681 F.2d 107, 107 (2 Cir. 1982) (appellant lived in the United States for 23 years, eleven of them under deportation orders); Pang Kiu Fung v. INS, 663 F.2d 417, 418-19 (2 Cir.1981) (appellant flouted immigration authorities for 13 years and deportation proceedings stretched across a period of over 8 years).

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