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:
This appeal is from a conviction on charges involving marijuana importation offenses. Appellant was one of a group charged but was given a separate trial.
One principal assignment of error is that appellant was entrapped as a matter of law by the government’s use of a pilot-informer. The arrangements to import large quantities of marijuana were well underway by the time the pilot was employed. It happened that the pilot was a government informer and that the government allowed him to keep fees earned from his endeavors. The fee in this instance for flying from Tampa, Florida to Colombia, South America and return with 1,000 pounds of marijuana was $10,000 and 50 pounds of the marijuana. (The government stoutly denied "that the pilot was allowed to keep the marijuana.) ;
Appellant and Geder, one of his co-in-dictees, went to Colombia with the pilot to purchase the marijuana and to transport it to Tampa. All in the group of nine were apprehended upon the return of the pilot, appellant and Geders. The only additional fact favoring appellant was the claim that he and Geders were dissuaded by the pilot from dumping the marijuana from the plane while in flight and prior to reaching Tampa. The entrapment defense was submitted to the jury as an issue.
In our decision in United States v. Fink, supra, we rejected the contention of Geders that he was entrapped as a matter of law under these circumstances. Although the facts as to appellant differ to some extent, we reach the same conclusion here.
We have considered and likewise find without merit the following additional assignments of error: (1) that the government was permitted to introduce hearsay testimony from a police officer as to appellant’s predisposition to commit the crimes with which he was charged; (2) that the district court refused to compel the police officer to reveal the name of his confidential informant; (3) that the police officer’s name had not been included on the government’s pretrial list of witnesses against appellant; (4) that the district court admitted hearsay testimony of a coconspirator; (5) that the district court refused to ask prospective jurors questions submitted by appellant; (6) that the district court prematurely instructed the jury during the testimony of a coconspirator; and (7) that judgment of acquittal was not granted.
Affirmed.
. See United States v. Fink, 5 Cir., 1974, 502 F.2d 1. The eight persons indicted with appellant included Rufus R. Surles, Jr., Tom Waddington, Michael and Fred Fink, Randy Kilgore, Stephen Patrick, David Butler, and John Geders. Michael Fink and Geders were convicted and their convictions were affirmed in the above styled case. Waddington is deceased. Kilgore and Fred Fink pleaded guilty to charges against them prior to trial. Charges against Butler and Surles were dismissed on motion of the government.

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