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.
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 is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

Opinion:
Jerald Dennis KEARNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Duane SHILLINGER; Patricia Burroughs; A.K. Kirsch, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-1296.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 20, 1987.
Jerald Dennis Kearns, pro se.
Bruce A. Salzburg of Freudenthal, Salzburg, Bonds & Rideout, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyo., for defendants-appellees.
Before LOGAN and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and O’CONNOR, District Judge.
The Honorable Earl E. O’Connor, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8(c) and 27.1.-2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a special master.
The issue on appeal is whether the district court’s order is final such that this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
The grant of appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Century Laminating, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 595 F.2d 563, 565 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 444 U.S. 987, 100 S.Ct. 516, 62 L.Ed.2d 417 (1979). A judgment is final and appealable when a district court enters a decision which ends the litigation, leaving nothing to be done but execution of the judgment. Lamp v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 1167, 1168 (10th Cir.1981). To be final, the judgment must fully inform the losing party of the extent of the remedy afforded against him. Id. at 1168-69.
Exception to the final decision rule is permitted for cases which finally determine rights separable from and collateral to rights asserted in the action, which are too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Also, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) permits a district court judge to certify certain orders for appeal, and the court of appeals in its discretion may permit appeal.
The district court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a special master is not a final, appealable order. Cf. Petition of Trustees of Joint Welfare Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local Unions 14, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 15D, 549 F.2d 871 (2d Cir.1977) (district court order denying motion to modify prior order which had directed appointment of a special master to divide joint pension fund was not a final, appealable order); Williams v. Maxwell, 396 F.2d 143 (4th Cir.1968) (orders of district court approving preliminary report of master and referring case for findings on other issues do not contain certification required by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to facilitate an interlocutory appeal); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2615 (1971) (an order of reference to a master is interlocutory and not appealable). The order neither falls within the established guidelines for exception to the final judgment rule nor was certified pursuant to § 1292(b).
We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 7