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.

BURGER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted of “forging and uttering” under 22 D.C.Code § 1401 (1951). At his own request he was tried without a jury. A motion to suppress the victim’s stolen credit card was denied and the appellant contends this was error because the search warrant which authorized search of his dwelling did not describe the credit card but only other stolen articles which were recovered in the search.
A police officer engaged in searching appellant’s bedroom under a warrant which described numerous articles of stolen personal property opened a dresser drawer in the process of search. In the drawer he saw a credit card issued in the name of the complaining witness whose other stolen personal property had just been found in appellant’s possession. With the credit card was a statement from Lansburgh’s Department Store also in the complaining witness’ name. Neither the credit card nor the statement was specified in the warrant.
Appellant contends that it was reversible error for the District Court to refuse to suppress the card and statement as evidence. He argues that the police could not seize the credit card and statement without securing a new warrant as provided by Rule 41(c) Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A. With the credit card were documents of purchase of merchandise in the name of the same person. Appellant’s brief states that the searching officer “discovered what ostensibly appeared to be forged documents * * An officer engaged in a lawful search is not confined to seizing only those items described in the warrant, especially where the unlisted items seized are instrumentalities of a crime. “The Fourth Amendment provides that the warrant must particularly describe the ‘things to be seized.’ But it is well established that given a lawful search some things may be seized in connection therewith which are not described in the warrant * Palmer v. United States, 1953, 92 U.S. App.D.C. 103, 104, 203 F.2d 66, 67. See also Bryant v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 746. “This Court has frequently recognized the distinction between merely evidentiary materials, on the one hand, which may not be seized either under the authority of a search warrant or during the course of a search incident to arrest, and on the other hand, those objects which may validly be seized including the instrumentalities and means by which a crime is committed * * Harris v. United States, 1947, 331 U.S. 145, 154, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 1103, 91 L.Ed. 1399.
Affirmed.
. Appellant lias been tried and convicted for housebreaking and larceny of the personal property described in the warrant. Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App. 193, 290 F.2d 384. After the complaining witness had reported theft of the listed articles he learned that someone had forged his name to purchase agreements and he promptly reported this to the police.
In No. 16073 appellant challenged the validity of the instant search warrant under which certain goods later admitted into evidence were seized. He contended that the warrant was obtained upon information derived in executing an arrest warrant which was based upon a fatally defective complaint. No such contention was advanced in the instant case.
. The warrant included a maroon colored Atlas vacuum cleaner, a black and white Sylvania clock radio, wood cabinet radio, 2 hats, 15 shirts, blue suit, etc.

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