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:
George Martin BRADLEY, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Appellee.
No. 19337.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
April 15, 1969.
George M. Bradley, pro se.
Calvin K. Hamilton, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BLACKMUN, MEHAFFY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
. PER CURIAM.
George Martin Bradley, a federal prisoner, is presently confined at the Federal Medical Center, Springfield, Missouri, having been convicted by trial to a jury on two separate counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d) (armed bank robbery). Bradley was tried, convicted and sentenced by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, but brought the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus' in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, contending that the Missouri district court had jurisdiction by reason of his having exhausted his remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the committing court.
Judge Elmo B. Hunter denied Bradley’s petition in a memorandum and order holding that petitioner had not exhausted his remedies in the committing court as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to Bradley’s right to avail himself of any remedy he might have in the committing court by way of a § 2255 motion. We affirm.
This is the second time that petitioner has been before this court, having previously appealed from an order of the committing court denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Bradley v. United States, 347 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1016, 86 S.Ct. 628, 15 L.Ed.2d 530 (1966), we affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, holding in a carefully considered per curiam opinion that the order by Judge Stephenson (the sentencing court) denying Bradley’s petition for relief under § 2255 was proper.
Judge Hunter noted in his memorandum opinion that, in the former appeal, Bradley had made the following contentions: (1) he was not competent to stand trial; (2) he was not given a proper hearing to determine his competency to stand trial; (3) the Government failed to sustain its burden of proving that he was sane at the time of the alleged offense; (4) he was not competent at the time of sentencing; and (5) his court-appointed counsel negligently and incompetently represented him. These contentions were reasserted in the petition in the present case, and Judge Hunter, following the teachings of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963), and in view of the relatively recent ruling of the Iowa district court against petitioner on the merits of these points, and affirmance by this court, determined that the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the present application insofar as it involves the points heretofore adjudicated.
Judge Hunter also found that other contentions raised by petitioner had not been previously presented to the Iowa district court, and, therefore, had not been considered by the Iowa court. These contentions include failure to order a psychiatric examination during the time of the trial; failure to order a psychiatric examination which would include an inquiry into petitioner’s mental capacity at the time of the offense; failure of the court to protect petitioner’s right to due process of law; and failure to accord petitioner a mental hearing just prior to trial. These additional contentions are matters prematurely brought in the Missouri district court and Bradley must first avail himself of his remedy, if one exists, in the committing court by way of a § 2255 motion. The last paragraph of § 2255 provides that an application for writ of habeas corpus shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Glenn v. Ciccone, 370 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1966).
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court of Missouri denying the application for writ of habeas corpus is correct, and the judgment is affirmed.
. We said in Bradley v. United States, 347 F.2d 121, 123 (8th Cir. 1965):
“A review of the district court files convinces us that Bradley’s court-appointed counsel was able and protective of every right possessed by the defendant. He displayed zeal, ingenuity, and competency.”
. The Supreme Court held in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068 (1963), that petitioner’s successive applications were properly denied where he sought to retry a claim previously fully considered on its merits and decided against him and where the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.
. Judge Hunter also cites Simcox v. Harris, 324 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1006, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1964); Queen v. Page, 362 F.2d 543 (10th Cir. 1966); Duncan v. Carter, 299 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 952, 82 S.Ct. 1602, 8 L.Ed.2d 818 (1962). For more recent cases, see Dixon v. Bhay, 396 F.2d 760, 761 (9th Cir. 1968); Putt v. United States, 392 F.2d 64, 65, n. 1 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 929, 89 S.Ct. 264, 21 L.Ed.2d 266 (1968).

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