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.

SETH, Circuit Judge.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury on two counts of unlawfully selling depressant or stimulant drugs in violation of section 331(q)(2), Title 21, United States Code, and from the judgment entered on that verdict, defendant Davis brings this appeal.
Defendant-appellant’s only contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to have the principal Government witness, Chris V. Saiz, barred from testifying at his trial.
Chris V. Saiz had been the Special Agent in Charge of the Salt Lake City Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs office at the time defendant was arrested. The transaction which was the basis of the charge was between defendant and Saiz. There were no other eyewitnesses to the alleged sale to Saiz, although there was testimony from other officers as to the movements of then Agent Saiz in and out of the house of the defendant.
Defendant based his motion to have Saiz disqualified and barred from testifying on the fact that Saiz had entered a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor charge of depriving a person of his civil rights, after being named in a federal grand jury indictment charging him and other agents with conspiracy, perjury, and submitting a false report. This charge arose from testimony given by him at a trial in California involving facts similar to those present here. The indictment charged that Agent Saiz’s alleged illegal activity took place during about the same time as the events which led to defendant’s arrest and trial.
Saiz testified during the course of this trial that he had in the California trial signed an untrue report, and testified to the false facts contained in that report, and that he did so because of pressures from his superiors. He was extensively-cross-examined below as to this prior false testimony. Thus, all the information bearing on the credibility of the witness Saiz was brought out at defendant’s trial. The jury was faced with a choice as to whether or not they thought Saiz was telling the truth during this trial. They apparently believed that he was, and returned a verdict against the defendant.
Defendant urges that we should reverse and so rule to bar the Government from using testimony from such a witness. In support of his contention that it was error to not grant his motion to bar Saiz from testifying, defendant relies primarily on the case of Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1, 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956).
Mesarosh does not support defendant’s contention. In that case, the Solicitor General brought to the attention of the Supreme Court the fact that the witness Mazzei, a paid Government informer, had testified falsely in proceedings subsequent to those in which the petitioners had been convicted and asked that the case be remanded to the District Court to allow the trial judge to hold a a hearing as to the truth of Mazzei’s testimony in the pending case. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial as to all defendants, holding that if Mazzei’s testimony had been false, the trial was tainted as to all petitioners. They did not, however, hold that Mazzei could not testify at the new trial simply because his credibility had been brought into question. The Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Smith, 335 F.2d 898 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 989, 85 S.Ct. 700, 13 L.Ed.2d 609 (1965), interpreted Mesa-rosh, quite properly we believe, to require only that the issue of the truthfulness of the witness be presented fully to the jury. We think this interpretation is also supported by the fact that in Mesarosh, the Supreme Court cited Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 76 S.Ct. 663, 100 L.Ed. 1003 (1956). There the Supreme Court had also remanded for a determination as to the truthfulness of testimony given before the Board by three informers, paid employees of the Department of Justice, who the Government felt might have testified falsely in that proceeding. Also in Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966), the Court held that the testimony and the credibility of a paid Government informer was properly before the jury; that the jury was properly instructed, as they were in this case, as to the issue of credibility, and that no error had been committed. The credibility and the weight to be given the testimony of any witness is a matter for determination by the jury. United States v. Plemons, 455 F.2d 243 (10th Cir.); United States v. Frazier, 434 F.2d 238 (10th Cir.). The matter of disqualification of a witness to testify is covered under the Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts to be effective July 1, 1973. A great variety of witnesses testify and perhaps on occasion some not worthy of belief as to all their testimony but they are the only ones available. The jury is prepared under proper instructions to select and give proper weight to the testimony to be believed.
Thus we hold that the District Court was correct in permitting Agent Saiz to testify, and to leave the matter of his credibility to the jury.
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