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:
Stanford YATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John W. WINGO, Warden, Kentucky State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 19647.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 5, 1970.
Stanford Yates, in pro. per.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Runyan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., on brief for respondentappellee.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and O’SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
WEICK, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner has appealed from an order of the District Court denying, without a hearing, his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner and another man were indicted in the Circuit Court of McCracken County, Kentucky, for the offense of armed robbery. At his trial before a jury in the state court he was represented by counsel appointed by the court. Petitioner’s co-defendant was acquitted but petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. His counsel filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Petitioner alleged that he then requested his counsel to appeal but the lawyer “refused to discuss an appeal and walked away” from him. He further alleged that his counsel had abandoned him and he had been deprived of his right of appeal. He apparently did not inform the Circuit Court or anyone else of his desire to appeal. No appeal was ever filed.
In 1964, with the aid of another court-appointed attorney, petitioner filed a motion in the Circuit Court to vacate his sentence, alleging, inter alia, that he did not have the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. In that motion, however, he made no claim that he had been denied the right to appeal from his conviction. The court ruled that petitioner was adequately represented at his trial and that the other grounds which he stated were not properly raised by a motion to vacate, but should have been the subject of a direct appeal. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. Yates v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.2d 450 (Ky.), cert denied, 380 U.S. 988, 85 S.Ct. 1361, 14 L.Ed.2d 280 (1965).
Petitioner then filed a second motion in the Circuit Court to vacate sentence, alleging for the first time that he had been denied his right to appeal from his conviction. The court dismissed the motion, finding no newly discovered evidence, and holding that petitioner was precluded from raising that issue by Kentucky law which required the first motion to state all grounds for invalidating the sentence of which the petitioner had knowledge. Petitioner filed a third motion in the Circuit Court to vacate sentence, which motion was denied on August 28, 1967. His appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky was dismissed on a procedural ground.
Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 434-435, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963).
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court in 1965, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. That petition was dismissed. Memorandum Opinion, Civil No. 1538 (W.D.Ky.1965). He subsequently filed the present petition in the District Court. The District Judge dismissed his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appealed from this order. We hold that petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner in his application for a writ of habeas corpus has alleged facts which, if true, constituted a violation of his constitutional rights. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Swenson v. Bolser, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956); Benoit v. Wingo, 423 F.2d 880 (6th Cir. 1970); Hammershoy v. Commonwealth, 398 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1966).
Respondent filed no response to the application for the writ. The factual allegations contained in the application must, therefore, be taken as true. But even if the facts had been controverted, petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine their truth. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 494, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).
The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing.

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