Task: songer_appel1_5_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 appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Your task is to determine which category of state government best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert J. Ward, Judge, granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner in this case, Michael Simmons, was convicted in 1976 of sodomy, robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon after a jury trial in the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County. At trial, on direct appeal, and in his habeas petition, Simmons argued that the trial court’s instructions to the jury regarding his alibi defense shifted the burden of proof and therefore violated his right to a fair trial. Judge Ward, in a thorough and careful opinion, granted the writ after concluding that the charge was erroneous and that the error could not be considered harmless. We affirm on the strength of Judge Ward’s opinion. See Simmons v. Dalsheim, 543 F.Supp. 729 (S.D. N.Y.1982).
Judgment affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Which category of state government best describes this litigant?
A. legislative
B. executive/administrative
C. bureaucracy providing services
D. bureaucracy in charge of regulation
E. bureaucracy in charge of general administration
F. judicial
G. other
Answer:

Answer: G