Task: songer_appel2_5_3

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 appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)", specifically "judicial". Your task is to determine which specific state government agency best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM:
For the reasons adequately set forth in Judge Ervin’s dissent to the original panel opinion, Lewis v. Blackburn, 734 F.2d 1000, 1008-1012 (4th Cir.1984), we reverse the decision of the district court. 555 F.Supp. 713. We hold that the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that Georgia Lewis was not reappointed because she protested matters of public concern rather than matters of her immediate self-interest, within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants.
Chief Judge Winter and Judge Wilkinson would affirm the district court’s decision. They dissent on the grounds articulated in the original panel’s majority opinion. Lewis, 734 F.2d at 1000-08.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. The decision in Connick was not handed down until after the district court rendered its decision in this case, but the parties were invited to and did file supplemental briefs in response to that opinion.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)", specifically "judicial". Which specific state government agency best describes this litigant?
A. Judge (non-local judge; appellate judge)
B. Prosecutor/district attorney (non-local, e.g., special prosecutor)
C. Jail/Prison/Probation Official (includes juvenile officials)
D. Other judicial official
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A