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.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment of conviction upon the first and several other counts of an indictment charging that the defendant, William Lee Popham, having devised a scheme for obtaining money by means of false and fraudulent representations, for the purpose of executing such scheme placed a letter therein sufficiently described in a post office, to be sent and delivered by tbe post office establishment of the United States, in violation of section 215 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10385). The representations charged to be false consisted of statements to the effect that defendant owned lands, especially submerged lands, which were suitable for the propagation and cultivation of oysters, near Apalachicola, Ela., from which purchasers would realize exceedingly large returns upon their investments. These representations, some 24 in number, were alleged in the first count of the indictment and adopted by reference in the other counts.
The overruling of the demurrer to the indictment on the ground that it was duplicitous forms the basis of the first assignment of error. In United States v. Young, 34 S. Ct. 303, 232 U. S. 155, 58 L. Ed. 548, it is said: i£The elements of an offense under section 215 are (a) a scheme devised or intended to be devised to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses; and (b) for the purpose of executing such scheme, or attempting to do so, the placing of any letter in any post office of the United States to be sent or delivered by the post office establishment.” Only one scheme is here charged, and it is not an objection that it was to be consummated by means of several representations. We therefore are of opinion that the demurrer to the first count of the indictment was properly overruled. The other counts need not be considered, ad the sentence was less than could have been imposed under the first count. Abrams v. United States, 40 S. Ct. 17, 250 U. S. 616, 63 L. Ed. 1173.
It is contended, also, that the court erred in admitting evidence that certain representations were made on behalf of some of the associations or corporations with which defendant was not shown to have been connected so as to make him responsible. However, the evidence introduced by the government tends strongly to show that defendant was a party to the representations.
A variance is claimed between the indictment and proof that one of the representations was false. It was sufficient if enough of the representations to prove the scheme were shown to be false or fraudulent. United States v. Smith (D. C.) 222 F. 165.
The government offered in evidence a statement made by defendant at a fraud order hearing before the Post Office Department at Washington. Defendant objected to certain portions of that statement-,, and it was not filed or read in evidence, but was withdrawn. We are unable to see that he has any ground of complaint.
Error is assigned upon charges of the court. There was no exception taken to any particular charge, and a number of them were manifestly correct. Under rule 10 of this court, this assignment must fail.
The judgment 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