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:
Courtie U. BLAKESLEY, Appellant, v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Appellee.
No. 7656.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
June 19, 1964.
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1964.
Thomas P. Hester, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Richard H. Seaton, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Kansas (William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS and SETH, Circuit Judges, and ARRAJ, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing an application for a writ of habeas corpus by Blakesley, who was in custody under a sentence of a Kansas state court to imprisonment for the term of his natural life. From the application and copies of state court records attached thereto as exhibits, the following appears :
On March 30, 1946, Blakesley appeared in person and with John E. Powell, an attorney selected and employed by him, in a state court in Kansas, entered a plea of not guilty to a complaint, voluntarily waived ■ a preliminary examination, and was bound over for trial in a state court for the offense charged in the complaint.
Thereafter, on April 2, 1946, Blakesley appeared in person and by his attorney, John E. Powell, and entered his voluntary plea of guilty to an information charging him with first degree murder. Thereupon, the state introduced evidence in the case, as required by G.S.Kan., 1943, 21-403. After such evidence had been presented, the court sentenced him to confinement in Kansas State Penitentiary during the term of his natural life.
In his application for the writ Blakesley set up two grounds: One, that he was charged by information and not by indictment and was thereby deprived of a federal constitutional right, and two, that his attorney, John E. Powell, was a resident of the State of Missouri and did not have associated and appearing with him in the case an attorney who resided in or maintained his law office within the judicial district of the State of Kansas, in which the action was pending, and who was duly and regularly admitted to practice in the courts of record of the State of Kansas. Powell’s competency to represent Blakesley was not otherwise challenged in the application.
The trial court dismissed the application on the record before him and without a hearing.
The first ground plainly was without merit. Under the constitution and the laws of Kansas a person may be charged for murder by an information and a charge by indictment is not required. A prosecution by information in a state court is not a violation of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Although it is not alleged in the application, we will assume that Powell was not licensed to practice in Kansas. He was an attorney selected by Blakesley, duly licensed to practice in the State of Missouri. He was permitted to represent Blakesley in the state court action. There no doubt could be cases where a Missouri lawyer might not be sufficiently familiar with Kansas law to competently represent a party in a proceeding in a Kansas court, but we think it could not be assumed that a member of the bar of Missouri could not properly investigate the case, determine and appraise the evidence that would probably be introduced against Blakesley, examine the Kansas Statutes defining murder, and determine whether or not under the circumstances it would be best for Blakesley to enter a plea of not guilty. Moreover, we think that Blakesley, by appearing with Powell as his attorney and not requesting the appointment of a Kansas lawyer to be associated with Powell, waived the right, if any he had, to an attorney who resided in and was licensed to practice in the State of Kansas.
We conclude that the court rightfully dismissed the application without a hearing.
Affirmed.
. Sec: Chapter 83, § 1, State of Kansas Session Laws, 1939.
. G.S.Kan., 1949, G2-801; Sims v. Hudspeth, 166 Kan. 667, 203 P.2d 129.
. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 510, 4 S. Ct. 292, 28 L.Ed. 232; Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86, 4S S.Ct. 408, 72 L.Ed. 793.

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