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:
Michael C. WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colonel O.L. McCOTTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 84-1675.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 1986.
Keith A. Rosenberg of Meyer, Faller & Weisman, Washington, D.C. (Terence A. Lober of Crow and Lober, Leavenworth, Kan., with him on brief), for petitioner-appellant.
Alleen S. Castellani, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Benjamin L. Burgess, Jr., U.S. Atty., with her on brief), Dist. of Kan., Topeka, Kan., for respondent-appellee.
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, LOGAN, Circuit Judge, and WINDER, District Judge.
Honorable David K. Winder, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.
LOGAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the district court’s summary dismissal of petitioner Michael C. Watson’s application for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Watson currently is serving a ten-year court-martial sentence for rape and forcible sodomy, violations of Articles 120 and 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 925.
The district court dismissed the petition, without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing, on the ground that the military tribunals previously had given “full and fair consideration” to Watson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, despite the absence of any evidentiary hearing on the issue by a military court.
Watson was convicted in 1981 before a general court-martial. He appealed his conviction to the Army Court of Military Review on due process and ineffective assistance of counsel grounds; after a hearing that court affirmed his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Military Appeals denied further review.
Watson then filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus, a supporting brief, and a request for a hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, the district in which he is imprisoned. He again raised ineffective assistance of counsel and due process challenges to his confinement. Two days after this filing, the district court sua sponte denied the writ. This appeal raises only the ineffective assistance claim.
When a military decision has dealt “fully and fairly” with an allegation raised in a habeas petition, “it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to reevaluate the evidence.” Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 1048, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953) (plurality opinion). In Bums the district court had dismissed the petitioners’ application for habeas corpus without hearing evidence, because it was satisfied that the court-martial had jurisdiction over the prisoners, crimes, and sentences. Id. at 138, 73 S.Ct. at 1046. The court of appeals gave the petitioners’ claims full consideration on the merits; it reviewed the evidence in the trial record and other military court proceedings before deciding to uphold the convictions. Id. at 139, 73 S.Ct. at 1047. In reviewing these actions, the Supreme Court was willing to expand the scope of review available in federal courts slightly beyond purely jurisdictional concerns, but it found that the court of appeals had gone too far. Id. at 146, 73 S.Ct. at 1050. The petitioners had failed to show that the military review was “legally inadequate” to resolve their claims. Id. Without such a showing, the federal court could not reach the merits. Id.
In Burns the military review of the case had included review by the Staff Judge Advocate, a decision of the Board of Review in the office of the Judge Advocate General, a decision of the Judicial Council in the Judge Advocate General’s office after briefs and oral argument, a recommendation by the Judge Advocate General, an action by the President confirming the sentences, and a decision by the Judge Advocate General to deny petitions for new trials. Id. at 144, 73 S.Ct. at 1049. The Court deemed it clear, under those circumstances, that the military courts had given full and fair consideration to each claim. Id.
Although there, has been inconsistency among the circuits on the proper amount of deference due the military courts and the interpretation and weight to be given the “full and fair consideration” standard of Burns, this circuit has consistently granted broad deference to the military in civilian collateral review of court-martial convictions. See, e.g., Kehrli v. Sprinkle, 524 F.2d 328, 331 (10th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 3165, 49 L.Ed.2d 1183 (1976); King v. Moseley, 430 F.2d 732, 735 (10th Cir.1970); Kennedy v. Commandant, 377 F.2d 339, 342 (10th Cir.1967). Although we have applied the “full and fair consideration” standard, we have never attempted to define it precisely. Rather, we have often recited the standard and then considered or refused to consider the merits of a given claim, with minimal discussion of what the military courts actually did.
We will entertain military prisoners’ claims if they were raised in the military courts and those courts refused to consider them. See Bums, 346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048; Dickenson v. Davis, 245 F.2d 317, 320 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 918, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278 (1958). We will not review petitioners’ claims on the merits if they were not raised at all in the military courts, see, e.g., McKinney v. Warden, 273 F.2d 643, 644 (10th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 816, 80 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1960); Sutiles v. Davis, 215 F.2d 760, 763 (10th Cir. 1954). When an issue is briefed and argued before a military board of review, we have held that the military tribunal has given the claim fair consideration, even though its opinion summarily disposed of the issue with the mere statement that it did not consider the issue meritorious or requiring discussion. See King, 430 F.2d at 735.
There is no indication in any of our decisions that the military must provide an evidentiary hearing on an issue to avoid further review in the federal courts. On the contrary, less than an evidentiary hearing has amounted to “full and fair consideration.” We decline to adopt a rigid rule requiring evidentiary hearings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
We hold that the military did give full and fair consideration to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim at issue in this case. Although the military courts did not afford Watson an evidentiary hearing on his claim, he did receive a hearing On his ineffective assistance claim in his appeal to the Army Court of Military Review. That court’s opinion expressly considered the explanations of Watson’s trial counsel in a post-trial affidavit and demonstrated that the military court examined the trial record of the court-martial. In Bums the Supreme Court relied in part on its belief that the military courts had scrutinized the trial record before rejecting the petitioners’ claims. Burns, 346 U.S. at 144, 73 S.Ct. at 1049.
Under the circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary for the district court to issue an order to show cause or to hold an evidentiary hearing. It appeared from the application, even without the trial record, that Watson was not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. We therefore AFFIRM the' district court’s dismissal of the application for a writ of habeas corpus.
. The Fifth Circuit discussed the debate over the Bums test in its opinion in Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 198-99 nn. 21-22 (5th Cir.1975).
. The Tenth Circuit cases applying the Bums standard have addressed a wide variety of claims. See, e.g., Wolff v. United States, Til F.2d 877 (10th Cir.) (due process and confrontation claims), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 575, 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); Palomera v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 937 (10th Cir.) (competence to stand trial and ineffective assistance of counsel claims), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 405, 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965); Gorko v. Commanding Officer, 314 F.2d 858 (10th Cir.1963) (jurisdictional, speedy trial, and double jeopardy claims); Thomas v. Davis, 249 F.2d 232 (10th Cir.1957) (involuntary confession claim), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 385, 2 L.Ed.2d 358 (1958).
. Watson correctly argues that the determination of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires evaluation of a mixed question of law and fact. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). And generally we grant no deference to a state court determination of federal constitutional law on habeas corpus, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 759, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), with exceptions in Fourth Amendment cases. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3046, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). The Bums court, however, stated specifically that the deference due the military was greater than that due state courts. Burns, 346 U.S. at 142, 73 S.Ct. at 1048. Thus Watson’s reliance on cases involving civilian petitioners is misplaced.
. The military courts have set up a procedure for supplementary evidentiary hearings when a convicted person raises issues about which there is a factual dispute that cannot be settled with mere examination of the record. See United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 149, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967). Although supplementary hearings have been authorized when the issue was ineffective assistance of counsel, United States v. Scott, 18 MJ. 629, 631 (N.M.C.M.R. 1984), they are not always necessary. See United States v. Rivas, 3 MJ. 282, 286 (C.M.A.1977).

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