Task: songer_genresp1

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 first listed respondent.

WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge.
In March, 1975 on the Cherokee Indian Reservation, Cherokee, North Carolina, there was a basketball tournament participated in by the Cherokee Indian girls’ team, of which defendant Alfred Harold Lossiah, himself a Cherokee Indian, was coach, and the Seneca Tribe’s men’s team, on which the now deceased Bradley Maybee played. Both these teams were staying at the same hotel. After the March 15 contests, during the night of March 15-16, an unknown assailant cut, not seriously, a Seneca Indian. Thereafter Lossiah became involved in a dispute with members of the Seneca basketball team, and someone stabbed to death Maybee.
A grand jury indicted, a petit jury convicted, and the District Judge sentenced, Lossiah on a charge of second degree murder of Maybee. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153.
This appeal raises the following questions, first whether there was sufficient evidence to show that (a) defendant was an Indian and that the alleged crime occurred upon the Cherokee Indian Reservation, and (b) defendant committed the crime charged, and second, whether in various respects, hereafter specified, the trial court committed plain error affecting the substantial rights of defendant.
Inasmuch as at the close of the prosecution’s case defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, we cannot avoid addressing ourselves initially to the first set of questions, for if defendant were right on the first grounds he alleges, which, as will appear, we do not believe, we would be required to reverse and direct an entry of acquittal. After disposing of the first set of questions, we shall then consider whether there were such errors in the trial as to require a reversal with a direction for a re-trial.
We can quickly answer the first part of the first question.
• Without objection, the Government introduced Exhibit 6, the certificate of the Tribal Enrollment Officer of the Eastern band of Cherokee Indians that defendant is on Revised Roll No. 3902, was born May 8, 1943, and possesses three-fourths degree of Eastern Cherokee blood. That was adequate proof that defendant was a Cherokee Indian.
The witness Ross John located the place where the dispute involving, and the death of, Maybee occurred as the Boundary Tree Motel in the Town of Cherokee, North Carolina. The Court properly took judicial notice that that town is within the Cherokee Indian Reservation.
The facts therefore plainly bring this case within federal jurisdiction and make applicable 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153.
The second part of the first question presents the issue whether “there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, to support the finding of guilt,” United States v. Sherman, 421 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1970). Because we are to take the view most favorable to the government, it is sufficient to refer to the evidence admitted during the government’s case in chief. Ross John, the only witness initially called by the prosecution, testified that he was present when defendant was scuffling with Maybee, the deceased. John noted Maybee’s eyeglasses on the floor; saw Maybee try to grab defendant’s arm; then Maybee buckled, stepped back, grunted, swooned, fell backwards, and rolled on the floor. Defendant with a knife in his hand turned toward John and said that defendant would get him, too. We may omit other details because what we have recited is enough to meet the appropriate test enunciated in United States v. Sherman, supra.
Although defendant’s own version was-different and presented plausible evidence to support his contention that he acted in self-defense, his own witness Jumper testified that he did not observe the deceased carrying a knife or weapon nor exhibiting hostile or aggressive conduct toward anyone, but did hear the defendant say before the killing that he “couldn’t let this happen” to him. Moreover, defendant’s wife, who had been with him, was unable to testify to any assault upon her husband; and the prosecution’s rebuttal witness, Williams, testified that when he met defendant and his wife just before the stabbing they did not complain that they were in fear.
To sum up, the question whether defendant murdered Maybee or acted in self-defense was a matter which turned on the credibility of the witnesses, and was, therefore, a matter for decision by the jury.
But defendant contends that in submitting the matter to the jury, the judge erred in several respects. For example, it is argued that the court should not have read the indictment to the jury, nor should he have told them that they were entitled to scrutinize in the light of his natural self-interest the testimony of defendant, nor did he correctly instruct them on the law of self-defense. We are not impressed by any of these arguments, but we need not pause over them because defendant raises what we regard as such a significant different point as to require a new trial. The contention which we regard as persuasive is that despite timely objection by defendant’s counsel, the prosecution so examined defendant that the jury heard from defendant evidence of inadmissible prior convictions. The situation to which we refer must now be described.
When defendant was being cross-examined, the prosecutor questioned him about prior convictions. Over the defendant’s objection, the court admitted evidence about a conviction for disorderly conduct 7 years before the trial and convictions for drunk driving and public drunkenness. These convictions of misdemeanors did not have a bearing on truth and veracity, nor did they involve moral turpitude. Therefore, they were not admissible over objection. U. S. v. Frazier, 418 F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1969); U. S. v. Hildreth, 387 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1967); U. S. v. Pennix, 313 F.2d 524 (4th Cir. 1963); U. S. v. Gray, 468 F.2d 257 (3rd Cir. 1972); Johnson v. U. S., 424 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1967); U. S. v. Griffin, 378 F.2d 445 (6th Cir. 1967). It is apparent, therefore, that the admission of the evidence seriously prejudiced defendant. Because of this error, in a case where there was arguably a plausible self-defense claim by defendant, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Of course, at retrial, impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime will be governed by Rule of Evidence 609.
So ordered.

Question: What is the nature of 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: C