Task: songer_genapel1

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.
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 appellant.

PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to discharge, through bankruptcy proceedings, an indebtedness resulting from a student loan. The bank handling the loan, Adel Banking Co. filed a timely proof of claim. The claim subsequently was transferred to appellee Georgia Higher Education Assistance Corp. (GHEAC). Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 302(d), the bankruptcy court approved the transfer to GHEAC. The bankruptcy court also entered an order holding appellant’s student loan to be dischargeable. On appeal, the district court, 6 B.R. 1011, reversed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the loan was dischargeable but affirmed approval of the transfer from Adel to GHEAC. We affirm both actions of the district court.
Appellant’s argument that his student loan is dischargeable fails under the decision of the former Fifth Circuit in In re Williamson, 665 F.2d 683 (5th Cir. 1982) (Unit B). Similarly unavailing is appellant’s charge that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in approving the transfer of claim from Adel to GHEAC. Although GHEAC’s proof of claim did not become official until after the applicable time period had elapsed, this filing did not create a new claim. Rather, it constituted a substitution of parties with no change in the nature of the claim against appellant. Accordingly, GHEAC’s filing related back in time to the original filing by Adel and therefore was not untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Fitzgerald, 272 F.2d 121, 129 (10th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 919, 80 S.Ct. 669, 4 L.Ed.2d 738 (1960); In re Whicker, 47 F.2d 106, 108 (5th Cir. 1931). See generally Advisory Committee’s Note to Bankruptcy Rule 302. In light of the circumstances giving rise to the tardy claim by GHEAC, we cannot say that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in allowing the claim. Cf. Adams v. Evans, 642 F.2d 173 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding abuse of discretion as the standard of review for a bankruptcy court’s decision on whether to allow claims). Because the district court properly upheld this approval of transfer, its judgment is
AFFIRMED.
. Williamson is adopted as the law of this circuit. Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982).

Question: What is the nature of the first listed appellant?
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