Task: songer_respond2_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 second listed respondent. 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.

OPINION
Before HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and WOLLENBERG, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant alleged in the district court below and on this appeal several constitutional deprivations. His fundamental claim appears to be that summary tax collection procedures are constitutionally invalid as a violation of due process.
The- Franchise Tax Board sent several requests to appellant for payment of delinquent personal income taxes. Appellant declined to pay the taxes, asserting that he could only be required to pay if the tax debt were supported by a judgment of a court. The Franchise Tax Board, under the authority of California Revenue and Tax Code §§ 18906-18909, subsequently issued a warrant for collection of amounts due. The sheriff’s department executed the warrant by levy upon and sale of appellant’s automobile. This procedure, alleges appellant, deprived him of due process because he was not given prior notice and hearing in a court of law wherein the tax debt could be proven.
Summary tax collection procedures, which provide for subsequent judicial review, have been sustained against constitutional challenge since the case of Phillips v. Commissioner (1931) 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 1289. The Court there held that such procedures neither deprived a taxpayer of due process nor amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority to the executive branch of government. Id., at 593-594, 597-598, 51 S.Ct. 608. The exception in tax matters to prior notice and hearing was more recently reaffirmed in Fuentes v. Shevin (1972), 407 U.S. 67, 90-92, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, reh. den. 409 U.S. 902. See Tavares v. United States (9th Cir. 1974) 491 F.2d 725, 726. The fact that a taxpayer disputes the tax debt, as appellant asserts he does here, does not alter the rule of Phillips. See Kalb v. United States (2d Cir. 1974) 505 F.2d 506, 510.
California revenue and tax law provides for subsequent judicial review in personal income tax matters by way of a suit in state court for a refund. California Revenue and Tax Code § 19081 et seq. A similar procedure was expressly held adequate as an alternative means of subsequent judicial review in Phillips, 283 U.S. at 597-598, 51 S.Ct. 608. Thus, appellant has not shown a constitutional deprivation based on the seizure and sale of his automobile. Since no constitutional deprivation could be found from the summary tax collection activities of appellees, there could be no actionable conspiracy. The district court committed no error in dismissing appellant’s complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 1986 for failure to state a claim. When a case is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief, a pure question of law, no question of fact exists for a jury to try.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. 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: C