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:
Dalton E. WELLMAN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS; Local 501 of the International Union of Operating Engineers; Edward Fox; Robert Fox; and Samuel Ferranti; Defendants-Appellees.
No. 85-2904.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 1986.
Decided March 17, 1987.
David M. Schieck, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gordon K. Hubei, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before WALLACE, POOLE and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
WIGGINS, Circuit Judge:
Dalton E. Wellman, Sr. appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the International Union of Operating Engineers (the International), Local 501 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (Local 501), Edward Fox, Robert Fox and Samuel Ferranti. Local 501 removed Wellman from his position on its Executive Board after its membership tried and convicted him of fraud and “double-dipping.” Claiming denial of a fair hearing, he sued the defendants under section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 412. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. We affirm and award them $500 for defending a frivolous appeal.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, and will affirm only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the district court correctly applied the substantive law. Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1986).
The LMRDA prohibits a union from disciplining one of its members unless that member is: “(A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.” 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5). Because federal policy favors allowing a union to govern its own affairs, we review the findings of a union disciplinary hearing with deference, International Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Hardeman, 401 U.S. 233, 246, 91 S.Ct. 609, 617, 28 L.Ed.2d 10 (1971), but predicate that deference upon the accused having received a full and fair hearing under the LMRDA, Myers v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen Local No. 44, 667 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1982). .While we apply traditional due process concepts, we recognize that a union has a significant interest in controlling internal discipline, and so do not require the union's disciplinary proceeding to incorporate the same protections found in criminal proceedings. Id. at 820.
Wellman first claims he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing because he was tried before a regular mémbership meeting instead of before a general membership meeting. He argues that this violated the International’s constitution and by-laws, but cites no provision of either to support his claim. The union rejected his argument through the internal appeal process.
Even assuming a union fails to follow its own rule, it does not violate the LMRDA unless the violation of its internal rule also contravenes specific prohibitions in the LMRDA. Hardeman, 401 U.S. at 242-43, 91 S.Ct. at 615-16; Curtis v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local No. 125, 687 F.2d 1024, 1029 (7th Cir.1982). The LMRDA does not allow the recovery of damages for a union’s violation of a technical internal rule that does not adversely affect a member’s due process rights. Curtis, 687 F.2d at 1029-30. Wellman does not argue that the membership meeting was a biased tribunal, but merely contends it was the wrong type of membership meeting. The fact that Wellman was tried at one type of membership meeting instead of another did not deprive him of a fair hearing. His son represented him at the hearing, made arguments, and examined witnesses. The membership heard the testimony, reviewed the documentary evidence, and voted to convict him by a tally of eighty-one to six. Well-man has failed to present any evidence in support of his claim that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. Reviewing the disciplinary proceeding with deference, the district court properly held there was no genuine issue of fact that Wellman was treated fairly.
Wellman also claims he did not receive reasonable notice of the hearing because the International denied him a stay pending appeal of Local 501’s decision that the charges merited a hearing. He argues that in so doing, the International violated its constitution and by-laws. Again, he fails to point to specific provisions that the International may have violated, relying instead on vague allegations. Three separate union appellate bodies considered, and rejected, Wellman’s argument that any union rule was violated. Even assuming Wellman is correct that the union violated an internal rule, such a violation is not in itself actionable under the LMRDA. The district court found Wellman had twenty-eight days’ notice of the hearing, and thus properly held there was no genuine issue of fact that Wellman received adequate notice. See Hardeman, 401 U.S. at 244, 91 S.Ct. at 616 (reasonable notice for union disciplinary hearing is that which would be reasonable notice under the constitution).
Wellman finally claims he was not present at the hearing because he believed a stay would be granted, an argument he failed to make below. As a general rule, one may not urge for the first time on appeal a theory not presented to the district court. Guillory v. County of Orange, 731 F.2d 1379, 1383 (9th Cir.1984). Further, there is no evidence to support Wellman’s claim. The record shows that his son represented him at the hearing and neither requested a continuance nor suggested that his father wished to be present. Wellman fails to show that his right to a fair hearing was prejudiced or that he was denied notice of the proceeding.
The defendants request attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Fed.R. App.P. 38 for defending a frivolous appeal. We find this appeal “wholly without merit.” Taylor v. Sentry Life Ins. Co., 729 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam). Instead of attorneys' fees, however, we order Wellman to pay defendants $500 damages and double costs. Fed.R.App.P. 38. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

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