Task: songer_genapel1

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 is to determine the nature of the first listed appellant.

PER CURIAM.
Appellant Jenkins was convicted after a jury trial on a charge of smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (1976). She received a two-year sentence.
On appeal she contends that the customs regulation was so overbroad and vague that it denied defendant due process, that the jury instruction tended to shift the burden of proof to the defendant, and that the prosecutor improperly prejudiced the result by an accusation of an unrelated crime.
While 19 C.F.R. § 148.11 does contain broad language, 19 C.F.R. § 123.3, which deals specifically with customs relations between the United States and Canada and Mexico, provides such particularity as to make this argument valueless.
As to the jury instruction taken as a whole, we find no reversible error.
Recognizing that in the closing argument of the prosecutor a prejudicial assertion (that the goods sought to be imported may have been stolen) was injected, we nonetheless find no reason to reverse. When the trial judge had heard an objection to said comment, he offered defendant the opportunity to move for mistrial, which was rejected, and gave as a substitute a curative instruction which was agreed upon by defendant. We find no reversible error in proceeding with the trial under these circumstances.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed appellant?
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: G