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.

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge:
Following trial to a jury, appellant was convicted on both counts of a two count indictment, each charging a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. Count I charged that on or about the 10th day of July, 1964, appellant knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, received, concealed and facilitated the transportation and concealment of approximately 2.250 grams of marijuana, after the marijuana had been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, knowing that the marijuana had been imported contrary to law.
Count II in language similar to that contained in Count I charged that on or about the 17th day of September, 1964, appellant received, concealed and facilitated the transportation and concealment of a marijuana cigarette.
Appellant was sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of seven years on each count of the indictment, the sentences to run concurrently.
21 U.S.C. § 176a provides that the punishment for violation of said section shall be imprisonment for not less than five or more than twenty years, and in addition the offender may be fined not more than $20,000.00. If we find appellant’s conviction on Count II is free from prejudicial error, we need not consider his attack on his conviction under Count I, as the sentence imposed by the district judge on both counts of the indictment does not exceed the maximum authorized as punishment for the offense charged in Count II of the indictment. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692 (1929); United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1964); United States v. Romano, decided Nov. 22, 1965, 86 S.Ct. 279; Pugliano v. United States, 348 F.2d 902 (1st Cir. 1965); Head v. United States, 346 F.2d 194, 196 (9th Cir. 1965).
The evidence offered and received on behalf of the Government, as it relates to Count II, discloses that the marijuana cigarette was found on the person of the appellant after his arrest and during the booking process at the jail when a search of his clothing revealed the presence of the cigarette. At the trial a government chemist testified that his examination of the cigarette revealed that it consisted of marijuana. When the cigarette was offered in evidence, appellant objected to its admission in evidence on the ground there was no competent evidence before the Grand Jury of the cigarette’s marijuana content. The district court properly overruled such objection.
Prior to the trial appellant moved to suppress the cigarette as well as the marijuana which is the subject of Count I of the indictment, on the ground that both items of marijuana were illegally seized. The district court properly denied such motion as such motion related to the marijuana cigarette, since appellant does not question the validity of his arrest nor the validity of the search which revealed appellant’s possession of it.
The record further reveals that the possession by appellant of the marijuana cigarette on September 17, 1964, is separate and unrelated to the offense charged in Count I as having occurred on July 10, 1964.
All other errors specified by appellant relate solely to his conviction on the charge set forth in Count I, and we are satisfied from our examination of the record that none of the alleged errors specified to appellant’s conviction on Count I in any way infected appellant’s trial and conviction under Count 11.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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