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, Appellee, v. Giacomo REINA, Appellant.
No. 169, Docket 25644.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 9, 1959.
Decided Dec. 30, 1959.
Allen S. Stim, New York City, for appellant, Menahem Stim, New York City, of counsel.
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, for appellee, Joseph DeFranco, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, Daniel P. Hollman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., George I. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.
Before SWAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges, and HERLANDS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 401(3) appellant was convicted of criminal contempt of court and was sentenced to two years imprisonment for refusing to answer certain questions before a federal grand jury inquiring into alleged violations of the narcotics laws, after he had been granted immunity under 18 U.S. C.A. § 1406 and had been ordered by the court to answer the questions. Judge Dawson’s well reasoned opinion is reported in 170 F.Supp. 592.
Appellant attacks the constitutionality of § 1406. His principal argument is that the immunity granted under this statute will not protect him from state prosecutions. That a federal immunity statute need not do so was settled long ago in United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, 76 L.Ed. 210. He says that the courts should re-examine the Murdock decision. But, obviously, such re-examination is not for this court to make.
At the time of his appearance before the grand jury appellant was serving a prison sentence for conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws. The grand jury sought to question him concerning this crime. Seizing upon certain expressions in Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 16 S.Ct. 644, 40 L.Ed. 819, which sustained the constitutionality of a federal immunity statute similar to § 1406, appellant makes the fantastic contention that § 1406 is unconstitutional as applied to him because it does not grant a “general amnesty” or “pardon” for his past offense. The error in this argument is that it attempts to convert a general discussion in the Brown v. Walker opinion, at page 601, of 161 U.S. at page 648 of 16 S.Ct. as to the power of Congress to pass acts of general amnesty into an independent principle of law, requiring appellant’s past offense to be pardoned. No authority is cited to support this extraordinary contention.
Additional points made by appellant have been considered but are so plainly without merit that they require no discussion.
Judgment affirmed.
. See also Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 380, 78 S.Ct. 1302, 2 L.Ed.2d 1393; Tedesco v. United States, 6 Cir., 255 F. 2d 35; Corona v. United States, 6 Cir., 250 F.2d 578, certiorari denied 356 U.S. 954, 78 S.Ct. 921, 2 L.Ed.2d 847.
. His conviction was affirmed in United States v. Reina, 2 Cir., 242 F.2d 302, cer-tiorari denied 354 U.S. 913, 77 S.Ct. 1294, 1 L.Ed.2d 1427.
. For decisions rejecting the contention, see People ex rel. Hunt v. Dane, 132 App. Div. 406, 116 N.Y.S. 990, affirmed 196 N.Y. 520, 89 N.E. 1108; People v. Fine, 173 Misc. 1010, 19 N.Y.S.2d 275; People ex rel. Gross v. Sheriff, 277 App.Div. 546, 101. N.Y.S.2d 271, affirmed 302 N.Y. 173, 99 N.E.2d 763.

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