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.

PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal from a judgment denying their motions to withdraw pleas of guilty to a three-count indictment charging them with fraudulently concealing the assets of a bankrupt estate and with conspiring to do so. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 152, 371. The pleas in question were entered against the advice of counsel on March 9, 1961, before Judge Ray-fiel, who set March 30, 1961, as the date for sentencing. When defendants appeared in court for sentencing on that day, they moved under F.R.Crim.Proc. 32 (d) to withdraw their pleas of guilty. Denying the motions, Judge Rayfiel sentenced the defendants to prison terms of three years, two years, and fifteen months, respectively.
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Before pleading guilty, defendants were carefully questioned by the clerk in the presence of the court, and acknowledged they understood that they had the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, that they were entitled to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in their behalf and to be confronted by the witnesses against them, that they could be sentenced to imprisonment, and that they were pleading guilty voluntarily, without any threat or promise to induce them so to plead. On this appeal, defendants make no attempt to deny that they entered their pleas knowingly and voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the possible consequences. Furthermore, their counsel does not offer any direct affidavits from them, but advances only his own assertions and hearsay belief in his clients. We do not think this case shows any abuse of discretion. See United States v. Panebianco, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 238, certiorari denied Panebianco v. United States, 347 U.S. 913, 74 S.Ct. 478, 98 L.Ed. 1069.
Judgment 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