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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
ARK DENTAL SUPPLY COMPANY is a copartnership consisting of Archie Sherman and Robert Sherman v. CAVITRON CORPORATION et al. Appeal of ARK DENTAL SUPPLY COMPANY.
No. 71-1668.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued May 23, 1972.
Decided May 25, 1972.
'A. E. Hurshman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Gerald Sobel, New York City, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before STALEY, ALDISERT and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from summary judgment entered in the district court, 323 F.Supp. 1145, in favor of defendants. Plaintiff-appellant alleged that the defendants had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to terminate their business relationship with appellant.
Plaintiff had been distributing a product manufactured by Coles Electronic Corporation (“Coles”), a subsidiary corporation owned by Cavitron Corporation. In response to an order placed with Coles in July of 1970, plaintiff was advised by letter that sales of Coles products were being restricted to Clev-Dent, a division of Cavitron. The record shows that there are approximately 350 Clev-Dent dealers in the United States and five in the Philadelphia area where appellant does business.
Plaintiff’s theory of recovery is that Cavitron conspired with Coles and ClevDent to restrict the sales of the Coles product exclusively to 350 dealers, thereby restraining trade and creating a monopoly. Plaintiff relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in United States v. Arnold Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365, 87 S.Ct. 1856, 18 L.Ed.2d 1249 (1967), and Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741 (1959).
We do not view either Schwinn or Klors as applicable to the instant case. As was noted by the district court, the instant case bears no resemblance to Schwinn since here there are no restrictions imposed on territory or product and no restrictions on transfer of title or resale. Neither is this case controlled by Klors because here there is no wide combination of manufacturers and distributors whose objective is to drive the appellant out. of business.
We deem the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., 416 F.2d 71 (C.A.9, 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1062, 90 S.Ct. 752, 24 L.Ed.2d 755 (1970), to be dispositive of the instant case. In a thorough and well-researched opinion, the court, speaking through Judge Duniway, held that it is indisputable that a single manufacturer or seller can ordinarily stop doing business with A and transfer his business to B and that such a transfer is valid even though B may have solicited the transfer and even though the seller and B may have agreed prior to the seller’s termination of A.
Here, there was nothing more than a business decision to sell only to the dealers of Cavitron’s Clev-Dent division. We can find no violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act in such a decision. See also Tripoli Co. v. Wella Corp., 425 F.2d 932 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 62, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970); Instant Delivery Corp. v. City Stores Co., 284 F.Supp. 941 (E.D.Pa.1968); Peerless Dental Supply Co. v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 283 F.Supp. 288 (E.D.Pa., 1968).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. There is ample authority for holding that the conspiracy required to find a § 1 violation cannot be found here since Clev-Dent is a division of Cavitron, and Coles and (’avitron have never held themselves out as competitors. Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951): Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., 416 F.2d 71 (C.A. 9, 1969), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1062, 90 S.Ct. 752, 24 L.Ed.2d 755 (1970); Beckman v. Walter Kidde & Co., 316 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D.N.Y., 1970), aff’d per curiam, 451 F.2d 593 (C.A. 2, 1971).

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3