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:
Gerald D. PETERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20260.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 2, 1970.
Gerald D. Peterson, pro se.
Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges and HUNTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Gerald D. Peterson appeals from a denial of his “Motion for Reduction of Sentence” pursuant to Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P. Since Peterson’s motion was filed on October 24, 1969, more than 120 days after the denial of his application for writ of certiorari on June 2, 1969, by the United States Supreme Court on his direct appeal, and since the denial order was not suspended pending his application for rehearing, Peterson’s motion for a discretionary reduction of sentence under Rule 35 was out of time. Rule 45(b), Fed.R.Crim. P., expressly states that the court may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule 35 except to the extent and under the conditions stated in Rule 35. Consequently, the time limit for reduction of sentence “is jurisdictional — it may not be enlarged or extended for any reason.” 8A J. Moore, Federal Practice IT 35.02[2] (2d ed. 1969). See also United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 224-226, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960). However, a motion for reduction of sentence can also be treated as a Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence at any time and Peterson’s motion will therefore be considered from that viewpoint.
Peterson was convicted on three counts: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to violate 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) (sale of narcotics); (2) violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331 (q) (2) (sale of depressant or stimulant drugs); and (3) violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) (sale of narcotics). He received a ten-year sentence on the sale of narcotics, a five-year sentence on the conspiracy count and a one-year sentence on the sale of depressant or stimulant drugs; the last two sentences were to run concurrently with the ten-year sentence. His main complaint is that he received a disparate sentence to that of co-defendants and to others in non-related cases. He attributes the length of his sentence to his standing trial rather than pleading guilty, thus claiming a violation of his constitutional right to be tried by a jury.
Under 26 U.S.C. § 7237(b), the range of penalty for a 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) violation is imprisonment of not less than five or more than 20 years, with a permissible fine of not more than $20,000. Appellant’s total sentence is well within the permissible statutory limits. In view of his prior criminal record, we find his sentence amply justified aside from being well within the statutory limits. “[T]he severity of the sentence, if within the maximum allowed, is a matter within the sound discretion of the judge.” Cassidy v. United States, 428 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1970). There certainly has been no abuse of discretion in this case and Peterson’s appeal is dismissed as legally frivolous.
Appeal dismissed.
. Peterson v. United States, 405 F.2d 102 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 938, 89 S.Ct. 2003, 23 L.Ed.2d 453 (1969).
. Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P., provides in pertinent part:
“Correction or Reduction of Sentence.
“The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence. The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed, or within 120 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction." (Emphasis added.)
Supreme Court Rule 25 provides in pertinent part:
“2. Whenever application for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of any court is denied, the clerk shall enter an order to that effect, and shall forthwith notify the court below and counsel of record. The order of denial will not be suspended pending disposition of a petition for rehearing except by order of the court or of a justice thereof." (Emphasis added.)

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