Task: songer_genapel1

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 is to determine the nature of the first listed appellant.

PER CURIAM.
The jury could disbelieve the appellant’s version of what happened. The evidence otherwise is sufficient to show his guilt.
Having testified in his own behalf, there was no error in permitting impeaching evidence of his general bad character, and his bad character for truth and veracity. 70 C.J., Witnesses, § 1040; Baugh v. State, 215 Ala. 619, 112 So. 157; Johnson v. State, 203 Ala. 30, 81 So. 820; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 254 F. 52; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 46 F.2d 731; Campbell v. United States, 5 Cir., 47 F.2d 70.
Appellant then introduced testimony that his general character was good. In charging, the judge told the jury all this testimony was admissible. As to that showing good character he added: “That testimony was permissible because it is presumed that a man with a good general reputation is not as likely to commit a crime or violate the law as a person who has not a good general reputation; but I charge you, gentlemen, that men who have good reputations, general reputations, do violate the law.” Exception was taken “to that portion of your honor’s charge in which you said it is presumed a man with a good general reputation would not be as apt to commit a crime”. No ground of objection was stated. There is no error prejudicial to appellant in the words excepted to. What followed was a doubtful propriety, but was not excepted to. No error is established.
Judgment affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed appellant?
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: G