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.

PER CURIAM:
Howell Willis, a tax protestor, appeals his conviction on two counts of willful failure to supply the Internal Revenue Service with information required by statute or regulation for the tax years 1974 and 1975, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Among his numerous contentions, Willis asserts a right to claim on his income tax returns his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and further urges that both the district judge and the prosecutor made prejudicial comments during his trial which require reversal of his conviction. We reject these and other contentions of appellant and affirm.
In 1974 and 1975, Willis filed IRS income tax Form 1040’s that stated his name, address and social security number and asserted line by line his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The 1974 return reported only that defendant had $15.10 in dividend income and 24<p in interest income while the return for 1975 provided no financial information at all. Willis appended to his tax returns various documents purportedly explaining his failure to supply further data regarding his income and his assertion of the fifth amendment privilege. Evidence at trial showed that Willis earned wages of $19,332 in 1974 and $8,611 in 1975.
Our decisions in United States v. Brown, 5 Cir., 1979, 591 F.2d 307; United States v. Wade, 5 Cir., 1978, 585 F.2d 573, and United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1978, 577 F.2d 1304, conclusively dispose of appellant’s contentions respecting his right to assert his privilege against self-incrimination in lieu of supplying the tax information required by statute.
Even if, as Willis argues, the trial judge and the prosecutor made prejudicial comments, which we do not concede, our review of the record convinces us that, given the incontestable evidence of guilt, these remarks did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. “Because the prejudicial effect, if any, of the comments was slight in relation to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Greene, 5 Cir., 1978, 578 F.2d 648, 653-54. See United States v. Haynes, 5 Cir., 1978, 573 F.2d 236, 239.
We have considered appellant’s remaining assertions of error and, finding them merit-less, we affirm.
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