Task: songer_respond1_3_2

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 concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a criminal case in which appellant was convicted and sentenced for the crime of interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The securities involved were drafts payable to appellant and purporting to be signed by M. J. Watson. Watson was the name of a fictitious person; and the signing of that name by appellant was the forgery alleged. Forgery may be predicated of the use of an assumed or fictitious name when this is with intent to defraud. Lyman v. State, 136 Md. 40, 109 A. 548, 9 A.L.R. 401 and note. And a draft is a security within the meaning of the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2311. The case here is distinguishable from that presented in Greathouse v. United States, 4 Cir., 170 F.2d 512 in that appellant here did not disclose that he had signed Watson’s name to the draft or pretend that he was authorized by Watson to sign his name, as in the Greathouse case. The contention now made that he sometimes used the name of Watson as his own name is without merit in view of the fact that in handling the drafts he was representing himself to be Jones. Other questions raised by appellant, to the effect that an assistant United States Attorney had talked to a juror and that the record certified to this court is not accurate, are so lacking in any substance as not to warrant either discussion or notice.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?
A. cabinet level department
B. courts or legislative
C. agency whose first word is "federal"
D. other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
E. other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
F. other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
G. other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
H. Distric of Columbia
I. other, not listed, not able to classify
Answer:

Answer: I