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:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Allen RICE; Anita Vivian Miller; Cheryl Saubel Miranda; Ellen Rice Ward; Bobbie Ray Preckwinkle; and Laverne Saubel Nelson, Defendants-Appellants, United States of America, Defendant-Appellee, and 33.49 Acres of Land in the County of Riverside, State of California; Goodyear Service Stores; John H. Wingate, Jr.; Timothy J. White; John R. Stotts, Jr.; Vernon H. Holbrook, d/b/a Wingate Air Conditioning Service, partnership; and Unknown Others, Defendants.
No. 81-5725.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 5, 1982.
Decided Aug. 26, 1982.
Art Bunce, Karshmer & Bunee, Escondido, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Philip Walsh, Rosemead, Cal., Laura Frossard, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffappellee.
Before ELY, SCHROEDER, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
ELY, Circuit Judge:
Appellants, members of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, appeal from a summary judgment granted to Southern California Edison Company (“the Company”) on its complaint in eminent domain. We affirm.
The Company instituted this action in federal court pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 357 seeking to condemn a right-of-way to install electrical transmission lines over lands allotted to the Indian appellants herein. The United States, as trustee for the allot-tees and owner of title to the allotments, was named as a defendant. See Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 389, 59 S.Ct. 292, 295, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939). The allottees filed an answer raising as affirmative defenses lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under California eminent domain law.
The District Court, following this Court’s decision in Nicodemus v. Washington Water Power Company, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959), held that section 357 authorized condemnation of rights-of-way over the allotments. The District Court in the present case also found that the Company had stated a claim under California eminent domain law. Pursuant to its memorandum of decision, the District Court rendered summary judgment for the Company after the parties had stipulated to the amount of compensation. The allottees reserved their right to appeal from the judgment on the issues other than just compensation and timely filed their notice of appeal.
The Indian allottees’ first contention on appeal presents the issue whether land allotted in severalty to Indians, held in trust by the United States for the “sole use and benefit of the Indian,” 25 U.S.C. § 348, constitutes “property appropriated to public use” within the meaning of the California eminent domain law, Cal.Civ.Pro.Code §§ 1235.180, 1240.510, 1240.610. If the allottees’ land is considered “property appropriated to public use,” then the Company’s complaint in eminent domain is subject to dismissal for failure to allege that the public use it proposes is either compatible with or more necessary than the existing use. See id. §§ 1240.510, 1240.610; Woodland School District v. Woodland Cemetery Association, 174 Cal.App.2d 243, 245, 344 P.2d 326, 327 (1959).
We conclude that the Indian allot-tees’ land is not “property appropriated to a public use” within the meaning of the California eminent domain law. The state has defined “property appropriated to public use” as “property ... in use for a public purpose.” Cal.Civ.Pro.Code § 1235.180. See East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Lodi, 120 Cal.App. 740, 750-58, 8 P.2d 532, 536-39 (1932). The California Supreme Court has construed “public use” as “ ‘a use which concerns the whole community or promotes the general interest in its relation to any legitimate object of government.’ ” City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 31 Cal.3d 656, 665, 183 Cal.Rptr. 673, 646 P.2d 835 (1982) (quoting Bauer v. County of Ventura, 45 Cal.2d 276, 284, 289 P.2d 1, 6 (1955)). Thus, “appropriated to public use,” in the context of the California eminent domain law, appears to refer to prior condemnations authorized by the California Legislature. See, e.g., East Bay Municipal Utility District, 120 Cal.App. 740, 8 P.2d 532.
Moreover, although land allotted in severalty to individual Indians may be said to further in some sense federal policies toward Indians, the very nature of the allotment scheme and section 357 shows that these lands are not “appropriated to public use” in the sense contemplated by the California statute. The Congressional policy of allotting tribal land to individual Indians was intended to promote assimilation of Indians into American society. See Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast, 425 U.S. 649, 650 n.1, 96 S.Ct. 1793, 1794 n.1, 48 L.Ed.2d 274 (1976). This policy was furthered by protecting Indians from the operation of state laws that might decrease the economic value of their allotments. See Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 9-10, 76 S.Ct. 611, 616-617, 100 L.Ed. 883 (1956); United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 437, 23 S.Ct. 478, 480, 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903).
With respect to condemnation actions by state authorities, Congress explicitly afforded no special protection to allotted lands beyond that which land owned in fee already received under the state laws of eminent domain. See 25 U.S.C. § 357. Thus, consistent with its assimilation policy, Congress placed Indian allottees in the same position as any other private landowner visa-vis condemnation actions, with the interest of the United States implicated only to the extent of assuring a fair payment for the property taken and a responsible disposition of the proceeds. See Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 388, 59 S.Ct. 292, 295, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1938). Although United States policy toward Indians may have shifted away from an assimilationist approach in the years since the allotments were made, see Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 2483, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974), the fact that Congress has not amended or repealed section 357 shows that the position of Indian allottees with respect to condemnation actions under state law has not changed.
Thus, the status of Indian allottees under section 357 does not implicate the situation addressed by the pleading requirements of the California law concerning “property appropriated to public use.” Since Congress, with respect to state condemnation actions, has chosen to have Indian allottees remain in virtually the same position as those who privately own land for their sole use and benefit, the potential for a conflict in public uses that arises when a public entity attempts to condemn land already in use for a public purpose is not presented in this situation. See, e.g., Woodland School District, 174 Cal.App.2d at 245-46, 344 P.2d at 327. The Company’s complaint in eminent domain was not subject to dismissal under Cal.Civ.Pro.Code §§ 1240.510, 1240.610 for failure to allege a compatible or more necessary public use.
Second, the Indian allottees contend that 25 U.S.C. §§ 323-324, which empower the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way “for all purposes” only with the consent of Indian allottees, is the exclusive means by which the - Company may obtain its right-of-way across their allotted lands. This issue is squarely controlled by Nicodemus v. Washington Water Power Co., 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959). Section 357, which provides that lands allotted in severalty to Indians may be condemned for any purpose in accordance with state law, see note 1 supra, is an alternative method for the acquisition of an easement across allotted Indian land to which the United States has consented. 264 F.2d at 618. Accord, Yellowfish v. City of Stillwater, 691 F.2d 926 (10th Cir. 1982); Transok Pipeline Co. v. Darks, 565 F.2d 1150, 1153 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1006, 98 S.Ct. 1876, 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978); United States v. Minnesota, 113 F.2d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 1940).
United States v. 10.69 Acres of Land, 425 F.2d 317 (9th Cir. 1970), does not contradict the holding in Nicodemus. In 10.69 Acres we analogized sections 323 and 357 to comparable provisions in Title 23 and concluded that Congress intended to protect tribal lands, and not allotted lands, from the condemnation procedures set forth in 23 U.S.C. § 107(a). 425 F.2d at 319-20. The Tenth Circuit’s reasoning in Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. v. Pueblo of Laguna, 542 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1976), likewise does not aid the allottees’ case. Plains Electric is inapposite to a construction of section 357 because it involved a statute providing for the condemnation of communally owned Indian land, not land allotted in severalty as provided for in section 357. See Yellowfish, at 929.
The allottees contend finally that California jurisdiction and venue provisions, requiring that suits in eminent domain shall be commenced in California superior court, have “disabled” the Company from bringing this action in federal court. This contention is without merit. Condemnation proceedings pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 357 must be brought in federal court. Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 389, 59 S.Ct. 292, 295, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939). The state through its own jurisdictional provisions cannot strip a federal court of jurisdiction that Congress has conferred to it over suits involving state-created rights. See Markham v. City of Newport News, 292 F.2d 711, 713 (4th Cir. 1961); cf. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, 609 F.2d 1365, 1366 n.1 (10th Cir. 1979) (state does not by virtue of section 357 acquire the right to use state procedures or laws in condemnation suits under that section). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provide that the Federal Rules, and not state venue provisions, are to apply in actions involving the exercise of the power of eminent domain under state law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 71A(a), (k).
The judgment of the District Court is
AFFIRMED.
. The section, enacted in 1901, provides:
Lands allotted in severalty to Indians may be condemned for any public purpose under the laws of the State or Territory where located in the same manner as land owned in fee may be condemned, and the money awarded as damages shall be paid to the allottee.
25 U.S.C. § 357.
. The Indians’ allotments were authorized by the Act of March 2, 1917, ch. 146, 39 Stat. 969, 976, and the Agua Caliente Equalization Act of 1959, Pub.L.No.86-339, 73 Stat. 602 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 951-958 (1976)). See Arenas v. United States, 322 U.S. 419, 64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363 (1944); United States v. Pierce, 235 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1956). Patents issued to the Indian allottees declare that the United States holds the land “in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made.” 25 U.S.C. § 348.
. That the California Legislature intended sections 1240.510 and 1240.610 to permit an accommodation between prior and subsequent condemnations by state-authorized entities is supported by the general rule that a state may not condemn federally owned lands within its boundaries without the consent of the United States Government. See generally 1 J. Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain § 2.22 (3d ed. 1981).
. Congress recently indicated that section 357 is still in force when it extended operation of that section, and reemphasized the applicability of sections 323-328, to the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. See Act of Sept. 17, 1976, Pub.L. No.94—416, § 3, 90 Stat. 1275; H.R.Rep.No.800, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.News 2368, 2369-70.
. That Congress consented to state condemnation of allotted Indian land “for any public purpose,” 25 U.S.C. § 357 (emphasis added), is a further indication that Congress does not consider allotted land to be property already devoted to a potentially conflicting public use.
. Moreover, we are bound to the holding in Nicodemus until such time as an en banc panel of this Court overrules it. Upton v. Commissioner, 283 F.2d 716, 723 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 911, 81 S.Ct. 1086, 6 L.Ed.2d 236 (1961).

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