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:
GOVERNMENT OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS v. Patricia ROMAIN, Appellant.
No. 78-1868.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 23, 1979.
Decided June 18, 1979.
Judith L. Bourne, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Christiansted, St. Croix, U. S. V. I., for appellant.
Mark L. Milligan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chris-tiansted, St. Croix, V. I., for appellee.
Before ROSENN, MARIS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, Patricia Romain, an inmate of the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility, St. Croix, was found guilty by a jury of assaulting a matron of the facility, Myrtle Michael, in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 296(3). This appeal is taken from the district court’s order of June 14, 1978, sentencing the appellant to serve a term of eighteen months in prison, the term to run concurrently with the sentence the appellant is already serving.
The appellant contends on appeal (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal or to support the jury’s verdict, (2) that the verdict represented an impermissible coerced compromise resulting from the trial court’s insistence that the jurors continue their deliberations after they had reported themselves deadlocked and (3) that the appellant was denied a fair trial due to the government’s failure, through negligence, to produce two defense witnesses. We have considered these contentions and find them to be wholly without merit. However, our examination of the record reveals an error which we are obliged to notice and which requires reversal of the conviction and a new trial, namely, the request of the trial judge to the jury that he be informed of the jury’s numerical division on the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
The trial took place on May 30, 1978. The following day, after the jury had been deliberating for several hours, the foreman of the jury notified the trial judge that the jury was unable to arrive at a decision. The trial judge then sent a note to the foreman asking for advice on how the jury was divided and requesting that the numbers be inserted in two spaces provided at the bottom of the note. The note was returned to the trial judge with the spaces filled in indicating a division of ten to two.
The Supreme Court has held that the trial judge’s inquiry of a jury which is unable to reach agreement as to its numerical division is reversible error. Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 47 S.Ct. 135, 71 L.Ed. 345 (1926). The Court reasoned as follows:
We deem it essential to the fair and impartial conduct of the trial, that the inquiry itself should be regarded as ground for reversal. Such procedure serves no useful purpose that cannot be attained by questions not requiring the jury to reveal the nature or extent of its division. Its effect upon a divided jury will often depend upon circumstances which cannot properly be known to .the trial judge or to the appellate courts and may vary widely in different situations, but in general its tendency is coercive. It can rarely be resorted to without bringing to bear in some degree, serious although not measurable, an improper influence upon the jury, from whose deliberations every consideration other than that of the evidence and the law as expounded in a proper charge, should be excluded. Such a practice, which is never useful and is generally harmful, is not to be sanctioned.
272 U.S. at 450, 47 S.Ct. at 135-36.
We are not here concerned with the question whether the rule stated in Bras-field v. United States is one of constitutional dimension and, therefore, applicable to state as well as federal courts as held in State v. Aragon, 89 N.M. 91, 547 P.2d 574, 580 (Ct.App.1976), and People v. Wilson, 390 Mich. 689, 213 N.W.2d 193 (1973). But see Ellis v. Reed, 596 F.2d 1195 (4th Cir. 1979), contra. For it is, at the least, a rule adopted by the Supreme Court under its supervisory power over the courts of the United States and, thus, applicable to the courts of the Third Federal Judicial Circuit, of which the District Court of the Virgin Islands is one. See Government of Virgin Islands v. Solis, 4 V.I. 615, 619-620, 334 F.2d 517, 519-520 (3d Cir. 1964).
The failure of counsel to bring this error to the court’s attention does not preclude its correction on appeal since the error, once committed, cannot be cured. Brasfield v. United States, supra, 272 U.S. at 450, 47 S.Ct. 135.
The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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