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. Roland SESSUM and Paul S. Markowitz, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 79-5235, 79-5326.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued July 14, 1980.
Decided Sept. 12, 1980.
Bruce Kelley, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., (Court-appointed) for defendant-appellant in No. 79-5235.
W. J. Michael Cody, U. S. Atty., Timothy R. DiScenza, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffappellee.
Irvin Salky, Memphis, Tenn., Paul S. Markowitz, for defendant-appellant in No. 79-5326.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, CELE-BREZZE, Circuit Judge, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants-appellants in these cases were indicted, along with three others, and charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1976). Each was found guilty and sentenced; Sessum to five years and a three-year special parole term, and Markowitz to a Youth Corrections Act indeterminate sentence. The evidence presented at trial pertaining to a major conspiracy to distribute marijuana was much more than ample to support the jury verdict.
Appellants contend, however, that they were improperly denied motions for severance and that certain evidence admitted against them was improperly admitted. A review of the facts in this case shows that the District Judge committed no error in denying severance. All of these defendants were shown to be closely related in one criminal conspiracy. As to the evidentiary issues, we find no error in the admission of expert witness testimony pertaining to the identification of marijuana. The three witnesses who testified were amply qualified to make the chemical analysis by which they identified the substances seized as marijuana.
The last appellate issue pertains to the fact that the government was allowed to present both a video and an audio tape of the central conspirator, one Frank Cianciola, without calling Cianciola as a witness. The appellants conceded, as they had to, that the tapes were properly identified by law enforcement witnesses who testified at trial and were available for cross-examination. The government also made Cianciola available if the defense had desired to call him.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

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