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:
James L. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. A. R. JAGO, Superintendent, Respondent.
No. 76-2038.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1977.
Decided June 10, 1977.
James L. Jackson, pro se.
Kurt A. Philipps, Jr., Covington, Ky. (Court appointed CJA), for petitioner.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, David J. Simko, Leo J. Conway, Columbus, Ohio, for respondent.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, CELE-BREZZE, Circuit Judge, and GUY, District Judge.
Honorable Ralph B. Guy, Jr., Judge, United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
James L. Jackson appeals from the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
On February 25, 1974, three armed robbers entered an Ohio service station and took $2,000 from two attendants. Approximately four weeks later, a police detective took the two service station attendants to a courtroom where Jackson was to be arraigned on unrelated charges. The detective asked them to sit in court and see if they recognized any of the participants in the robbery. When Jackson appeared in the courtroom for his hearing two and one-half hours later, both witnesses immediately recognized him as one of the three assailants. Following this identification, Jackson was charged with the robbery of the service station. The two attendants testified at the trial and positively identified Jackson as one of the three armed men who robbed them. The jury found him guilty on one count of the indictment. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial District of Ohio. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed Jackson’s appeal, concluding that no substantial constitutional question was involved.
The principal contention of Jackson on the present appeal is that he was denied his right to counsel and due process at the courtroom “showup.” We conclude that this contention is without merit under United States v. Black, 412 F.2d 687 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970). Jackson relies upon the Wade-Gilbert-Stovall trilogy. He asserts that if these three cases had been decided prior to Black, a different result would have been mandated. We reject this contention. In the present case Jackson had not been charged at the time of the courtroom showup. He was not charged with the service station robbery until after the two witnesses had observed him in the courtroom and identified him as one of the robbers. Since a critical stage of the prosecution had not been reached, it was not necessary to have counsel present. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689-90, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972).
We find no violation of Jackson’s due process rights. The identification procedure in the present case was not suggestive. The witnesses were placed in the courtroom and instructed “to watch everyone that comes into the courtroom, everyone that entered and left the courtroom.” If they saw anybody they recognized, they were requested to contact the police detective immediately. They followed these instructions and identified Jackson without any suggestive techniques on the part of the police. Accordingly, we hold that Jackson’s reliance on the Wade trilogy is misplaced.
Jackson also complains that the State trial judge read a three count indictment to a jury panel, although he was actually tried on only one of the three counts. He also asserts that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We conclude that these two contentions are without merit.
Affirmed.
. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967); and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

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