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.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.
J. McAllister Stevenson seeks by petition to have Frances Fisk declared a bankrupt and to establish a claim against her provable in bankruptcy. After charging the required allegations to meet the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the petition further alleges: “Judgment recovered December 18, 1935, against Record Publishing Company, a corporation, in the amount of $5,680.61, for the payment of which G. Fisk, the late husband of respondent, Frances Fisk, became personally liable by reason of non-payment of a greater amount due said corporation for subscription to its capital stock when, on September 13th, 1939, return was made upon execution issued under said judgment showing no property of said corporation to be found subject to execution, and for the payment of which respondent, Frances Fisk, became personally liable when, after the death of said G. Fisk, on December 29th 1940, and prior to January 16th, 1941, she the said respondent, assumed the payment of all debts of the community estate of herself and her deceased husband.”
Over one year after the filing of the petition, and motion to dismiss, the court passed upon and entered a decree, of which the important part for decision here is: “On this the 18 day of October, 1944, came on to be heard the motion of respondent, Frances Fisk, praying that this cause be dismissed for failure to show any debt due by this respondent to the petitioner, J. McAllister Stevenson, provable in bankruptcy, and the Court having heard said motion and the evidence thereon, is of the opinion that the same is well taken and should be sustained. * * * ”
No objection or exception is shown to the taking of evidence in support of the motion and no evidence is set out in the record. We are, therefore, authorized to indulge the presumption that such evidence was in support of the judgment to dismiss and is in all respects correct. Locals Nos. 1470, 1469, and No. 1512 of International Longshoremen’s Association v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 605. Furthermore, it appears that the plaintiff has wholly failed to comply with Rule 75(d), 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723c.
The brief of appellant shows that the judgment here under consideration and which was the subject of Stevenson’s petition, was finally held to be erroneous and of no effect by the Court of Appeals of Texas. That court reversed and rendered the judgment which petitioner had obtained and directed a verdict to be entered for Frances Fisk, and the Supreme Court thereafter denied application for certiorari. Fisk v. Stevenson, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 432.
It becomes manifest that the reversal of this case would work no benefit to the plaintiff.
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: G