opinion: EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Frank S. KELLY, Jr., William H. McCartney, and Robert L. Breedlove, Appellees.
  No. 7316.
  United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
  Aug. 5, 1963.
  A. K. Montgomery, of Seth, Montgomery, Federici & Andrews, Santa Fe, N. M. (Allen R. Grambling, of Hardie, Grambling, Sims & Galatzan, El Paso, Tex., with him on the brief), for appellant.
  George W. Hannett, of Hannett, Han-nett & Cornish, Albuquerque N. M. (J. C. Smith, of Hussey & Smith, Shreveport, La., with him on the brief), for appellees.
  Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to an opinion and mandate of this Court on a former appeal. El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kelly, et al., 308 F.2d 820. It is contended that the judgment does not conform to the opinion and mandate.
  “Upon remand from an appellate court with a specific mandate the trial court is limited to the imperative of the mandate and is without jurisdiction to vary or extend it.” Britton v. Dowell, Inc., 10 Cir., 243 F.2d 434. See also, Bastian v. Erickson, 10 Cir., 114 F.2d 338. In the former opinion we held that the plaintiffs had acquired 660 mineral acres on a weighted acreage basis which was alloted to them from three separate tracts in proportion to the ownership of their grantor in these tracts. To obtain this result a method of calculation was set forth. The judgment entered on the mandate is in accord with that method.
  Affirmed.
instruction: 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".