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. Jeffrey PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 80-1742.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 19, 1981.
Decided March 3, 1981.
Sara Criscitelli, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Appellate Div., Washington, D. C. (Charles E. Graves, U. S. Atty., and Jeffrey C. Fisher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Douglas J. Moench, Jr., of Cole & Moench, Cheyenne, Wyo., for defendant-appellant.
Before BARRETT, DOYLE and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
BARRETT, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey Payne (Payne) was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Payne appeals, alleging (1) a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is not sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Sixth Amendment Violations
Payne asserts his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was abridged when his trial counsel failed to present the defense outlined in his opening statement to the jury. We disagree.
In Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F.2d 275, 278 (10th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 945, 100 S.Ct. 1342, 63 L.Ed.2d 779 (1980), we held that the “Sixth Amendment demands that defense counsel exercise the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney.” This does not mean, however, that because “[t]he case was lost ... trial counsel’s performance was subpar.” United States v. Vader, 630 F.2d 792, 794 (10th Cir. 1980). Rather, each case must be determined on an ad hoc basis.
While trial counsel indicated in his opening statement that a separate defense case would be presented, he placed primary emphasis on the anticipated weakness of the prosecution’s case which would be exposed through cross-examination. As Payne’s trial counsel explained in his summation, no witnesses were called for the defense because he believed that the Government failed to meet its burden of proving Payne guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “When a case is lost, hindsight, by different counsel, often suggests many ways in which the trial could have been conducted differently.” Id. at p. 794. Defense attorneys must be given wide latitude and should not be condemned for making reasonable, strategic decisions in the heat of trial. No Sixth Amendment deprivation occurred under the circumstances presented in this case.
We have indicated that where the incompetence of counsel is pervasive, United States v. Porterfield, 624 F.2d 122, 124 (10th Cir. 1980), or other unusual circumstances exist, United States v. Golub, 638 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1980), specific proof of prejudice by the defendant is not required. Rather, the “burden should be on the government to establish the lack of prejudice.” United States v. Porterfield, supra, at p. 125. While this proposition may be questionable in light of United States v. Morrison, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 665, 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981) and other decisions, e. g. United States v. Wood, 628 F.2d 554 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc), we need not address the issue. Here, the Government has met its burden of establishing a lack of prejudice. Even should we assume ineffectiveness of counsel, the circumstances presented here do not warrant reversal.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Payne also contends the evidence adduced at trial is not sufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, United States v. Petersen, 611 F.2d 1313 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 905 U.S. 447, 100 S.Ct. 2985, 64 L.Ed.2d 854 (1980), we hold that evidence presented supports the jury’s verdict.
AFFIRMED.
. Payne is represented by-new counsel on appeal.

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