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:
In re Petitions of MEMPHIS PUBLISHING COMPANY (88-6369), d/b/a the Commercial Appeal (88-6106); RKO General, Inc. d/b/a WHBQ-TV (88-6108), and Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company, d/b/a WMC-TV Channel 5 (88-6107), Intervenors-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dana G. KIRK, Defendant-Appellee. In re MEMPHIS PUBLISHING COMPANY (88-6406), Petitioner.
Nos. 88-6106, 88-6107, 88-6108, 88-6369 and 88-6406.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Submitted June 8, 1989.
Decided and Filed Oct. 13, 1989.
S. Russell Headrick, Lucian T. Pera, Armstrong, Allen, Prewitt, Gentry, Johnston & Holmes, Memphis, Tenn., for inter-venors-appellants.
W. Hickman Ewing, Jr., U.S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.
Frank J. Glankler, Jr., Glankler, Brown, Gilliland, Chase, Robinson & Raines, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
Richard L. Hollow, McCambell & Young, Knoxville, Tenn., for amicus curiae Tennessee Press Ass’n.
Before KEITH and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge.
In this case we are required to consider petitions from organizations in the publishing or broadcasting business and the position of defendant-appellee Dana G. Kirk, who withdrew from this appeal. These proceedings are unique in that they pose possible conflicts between the First Amendment right to know what takes place in a judicial proceeding and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
At the outset, the case involved charges against the former head basketball coach at Memphis State University including income tax evasion, obstruction of justice and other offenses. The case attracted what is described in the record as “mammoth pretrial publicity.” As a result of these circumstances, Judge Horton decided to use a device which emitted white noise during voir dire proceedings, making the questioning of one juror by the court or counsel inaudible to other potential jurors, and to the public and press attending the trial. Jury selection began on September 12, 1988, and continued through Thursday, September 15, 1988, when the jury was sworn. It should be noted that no objection was made initially to the use of the noise device.
On September 13, 1988, a question concerning this procedure was raised by a reporter employed by one of the inter-venors.
The next day, several media organizations sought to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the closure of voir dire proceedings and seeking open voir dire proceedings. Following argument, the court granted petitioners’ motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the closure of voir dire proceedings, but denied the petitions for open voir dire proceedings. The court decided:
that the right of Mr. Kirk to a fair and impartial trial might well be un dermined by immediate expressions of such views as described above in the courtroom and by immediate publicity in the media of answers to questions given by potential jurors in this area, especially where opinions may be expressed relating to what may have been heard and discussed, read and discussed, opinions formed or present views on guilt or innocence or whether the government should have even sought an indictment of Mr. Kirk in this case. (Tr. 461) (emphasis added)
The court stated that a transcript of all voir dire proceedings, including those effectively closed to the public and press through the use of the noise device, would be available to the media and other interested persons “immediately upon the selection of a jury to try this case.” On October 26, 1988, the transcript of the voir dire proceedings was filed with the clerk of court and made available, for a fee, to the intervenors.
The second issue raised in this appeal concerns certain statements made by the district court at the conclusion of the trial. On November 15, 1988, following approximately eight weeks of trial, the jury in the underlying criminal case returned its verdict, finding defendant guilty on five counts of the indictment and not guilty on four counts. Following the verdict, the district court told the jurors:
May I ask you one other thing before you leave, that is, do not talk about the case. You don’t have to. No one can require you to do that. And should, down the road, it become necessary, you will hear from the court. So, if you will do that, we will appreciate it, also. Thank you. (Tr. 4).
Understandably confused by that statement, petitioners attempted to contact several of the jurors at the conclusion of the trial, but were rebuked in their attempts at interviews. Some of the jurors specifically referred to the statements of the district court in refusing to answer questions. Consequently, the petitioners filed a “Motion to Clarify Order Prohibiting Jurors From Communication With Others Concerning Criminal Case. Or, in the Alternative, To Vacate Said Order”. The district court disposed of this motion with the single word “denied”.
I.
As to the voir dire issue, the instant case is controlled by the Supreme Court decision of Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) (“Press-Enterprise I”) and its successor case, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). Both Press-Enterprise I and Press-Enterprise II hold that there is a fundamental guarantee of open public proceedings in criminal trials, which includes the proceedings for the voir dire examinations of potential jurors. 464 U.S. at 505-510, 104 S.Ct. at 821-824. Thus, there is a strong presumption of open voir dire examinations. Closure must be justified by the finding of an overriding governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Id. at 510, 104 S.Ct. at 824, citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982).
In Press-Enterprise I, the Court noted “the [overriding] interest is to be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered.” 464 U.S. at 510,104 S.Ct. at 824. More significantly, in Press-Enterprise II, the Court, in the context of a preliminary hearing but relying on Press-Enterprise I, wrote:
The First Amendment right of access cannot be overcome by the conclusory assertion that publicity might deprive the defendant [of the right to an impartial verdict]. 478 U.S. at 15, 106 S.Ct. at 2743.
It is our view that the naked assertion by the district court in this case that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial “might well be undermined”, without any specific finding of fact to support that conclusion, was insufficient to justify closure under Press-Enterprise I and Press- Enterprise II. We thus reverse as to the voir dire issue.
II.
The second issue in this case presents special problems. The petitioners urge this court to accept Judge Horton’s post-trial statement to the jury as a gag order, while defendant Kirk maintains that it is mere advice.
As to this issue, the summary disposition of the district court by simply writing “denied” prevents effective appellate review. Thus, on this issue, we remand for clarification, mindful of the fact that if the trial court’s statement were indeed a post-trial judicial gag order of the scope alleged by petitioners, it would trammel First Amendment values, and thus fail to pass Constitutional muster.
It must also be noted that petitioners in this appeal have also filed a motion for a writ of mandamus, presenting identical issues and arguments as addressed in issue two of this appeal. Since the issue is disposed of by this opinion, there is no need to address the merits of the writ of mandamus, which is DENIED.

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: 3