Task: songer_genresp2

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 second listed respondent. If there are more than two respondents and at least one of the additional respondents has a different general category from the first respondent, then consider the first respondent with a different general category to be the second respondent.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
Enterprise seeks review of the Commission’s order released November 7, 1960, reaffirming its earlier award of a construction permit to Beaumont Broadcasting Corporation for a television station to operate on Channel 6 in Beaumont, Texas. Details of the case in its present posture will succinctly be outlined.
The Commission’s decision of August 4, 1954, apprised the parties that Beaumont had prevailed after a comparative hearing among three applicants. Enterprise and KTRM petitioned for reconsideration, oral argument being set for December 21, 1954. On December 17, 1954, the Commission was advised of an agreement as a result of which KTRM withdrew its petition for reconsideration. Beaumont then borrowed $55,000 from one Hobby, who had been interested in KTRM, and paid that money to KTRM to reimburse it for the sums expended by it in connection with the preparation and presentation of its application for a television construction permit. This court required the Commission to reexamine the comparative qualifications of the remaining parties on a reopened record which was to take account of all such circumstances.
Thereafter the case again came here and was again remanded. The court deemed the record inadequate especially since there had been no sufficient showing as to the nature of the consideration. It was made clear that the court was interested basically in whether or not the payment contravened the public interest or constituted an abuse of the Commission’s processes. That the Commission was thus so apprised is apparent from its order remanding the case to its examiner for further hearing.
The hearing examiner and the Commission specifically found that KTRM’s fair and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses aggregated a sum not less than $55,-000; that the payment covered properly reimbursable expenses of KTRM; and that nothing in the transaction contravened the public interest or constituted an abuse of the Commission’s processes. We can not say that the findings and conelusions of the Commission are not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. Under such circumstances, we are bound to affirm.
Affirmed.
. Various aspects of the arrangement were considered in Enterprise Company v. Federal Communications Com’n, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 374, 376, 377, 231 F.2d 708, 710, 711, certiorari denied 1956, 351 U.S. 920, 76 S.Ct. 711, 100 L.Ed. 1451.
. Id. 97 U.S.App.D.C. at page 380, 231 F.2d at page 713.
. Enterprise Co. v. F. C. C., 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 119, 265 F.2d 103.
. Cf. § 5(a), 74 Stat. 892 (1960), amending 47 U.S.C.A. § 311, which provides the applicable standards.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed respondent whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: I