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. Joe SOTELO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 84-1293
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 20, 1985.
Brantley Pringle, Fort Worth, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
James A. Rolfe, U.S. Atty., E. Michael Sheehan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEE, JOHNSON, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Joe Angelo Sotelo was convicted by a jury on four counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Sotelo, assisted by court-appointed counsel, appealed. In an unpublished opinion, this Court affirmed. 742 F.2d 1451 (5th Cir.1984).
Under Rule 20.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, the deadline for Sotelo to file a petition for writ of certiorari was October 30, 1984. On July 15, 1985, Sotelo filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari. In the petition, Sotelo alleged that his court-appointed counsel had failed and refused to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari despite Sotelo’s written request that his counsel file such a petition.
In response to Sotelo’s petition, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded the case for further proceedings, including, if appropriate, the re-entry of this Court’s judgment affirming Sotelo’s conviction and appointment of counsel to assist Sotelo in seeking timely review of this Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States. Sotelo v. United States, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 42, 88 L.Ed.2d 35 (1985).
In doing so, the Supreme Court followed Wilkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 468, 99 S.Ct. 1829, 60 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979). In Wilkins, the Supreme Court noted that under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3006A(c), 3006A(d)(6), and 3006A(g), and the Criminal Justice Act Plan adopted by the Courts of Appeals, a person whose federal conviction has been affirmed is entitled to assistance from his court-appointed counsel in seeking certiorari upon the federal defendant’s written request. The Supreme Court in Wilkins adopted the procedure it employed in the instant case. In Wilkins, the Supreme Court vacated the prior affirmance of the defendant’s conviction by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This procedure required the court of appeals to reexamine its prior opinion and to reenter its prior decision, if appropriate. The defendant Wilkins would then be allowed to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari to request the Supreme Court to review the reentered judgment.
Upon receipt of the Supreme Court’s order, this Court directed Brantley Pringle, counsel for Sotelo, to respond to Sotelo’s statement that Pringle failed to assist Sotelo in preparing a petition for writ of certiorari. In his response, attorney Pringle states that, upon receipt of this Court’s decision affirming Sotelo’s conviction, he sent Sotelo a copy of this Court’s opinion. Pringle also states that he enclosed a copy of “memorandum to counsel or parties” prepared by this Court. This memorandum includes the statement that “appointed counsel shall promptly advise the party in writing of the right to seek further review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court and shall file such petition if requested to do so in writing by such party.” Pringle also said that he enclosed a note advising Sotelo that a further appeal to the Supreme Court would not be productive of a different result. Pringle, however, did not retain a copy of this note. Pringle also stated that he did not specifically advise Sotelo in writing of his right to pursue such a petition without incurring costs but that he believed that he advised Sotelo orally of this benefit. Pringle further related that, on December 13, 1984, Sotelo wrote Pringle, stating, “I would like for you to fill a Sancuary [sic] to the Supreme Court____” Pringle states that he did not interpret this statement as a request for assistance to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Nevertheless, on January 2, 1985, Pringle responded to Sotelo in a memorandum which explained why Pringle thought a further appeal would be fruitless.
Although attorney Pringle may have complied minimally with the responsibilities of appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act Plan adopted by this Court, Sotelo states that he was not fully advised of his statutory rights. In light of the Supreme Court’s mandate and out of an abundance of caution to grant Sotelo a full opportunity to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari, we have examined our earlier opinion. Upon this examination, we have determined that the judgment affirming Sotelo’s conviction should be reentered. In a separate opinion, this Court has appointed counsel to assist Sotelo in preparing his petition for writ of certiorari.
SO ORDERED.
. Sotelo alleged three grounds of appeal. The first ground was that the district court erred in refusing to give requested instructions on the defense of entrapment. The Court held that, while the accused is not required to present witnesses to be entitled to an entrapment instruction, the evidence was insufficient to warrant such an instruction. The Court also rejected Sotelo’s claims of improper jury argument and excessive sentence.
. The Criminal Justice Act Plan adopted by this Court provides:
Appointed counsel shall, in the event of affirmance or other decision adverse to the party represented, promptly advise him in writing of his right to seek further review by the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, and shall file such petition, if requested by such party in writing to do so.
Appointed counsel shall advise the party represented in all cases covered by the Act [section 3006A of Title 18] that, if he wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeals or to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, he has the right under the Act [section 3006A of Title 18] to do so without prepayment of fees and costs or giving security therefor, and without filing the affidavit of financial inability to pay such costs required by Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a) [section 1915(a) of this title].
Rule on the Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act, § 4. A copy of the Plan is readily available in the supplement to 28 U.S. C.A.
. We remind counsel that it is counsel’s responsibility as an officer of the Court to comply fully with the Plan. See Wilkins, 441 U.S. at 470, 99 S.Ct. at 1830. Although sanctions are not appropriate in this case, the Court will consider such action in future cases.

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