Task: songer_counsel1

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.
Your task is to determine the nature of the counsel for the appellant. If name of attorney was given with no other indication of affiliation, assume it is private - unless a government agency was the party

PER CURIAM.
In this diversity action appellant appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint against appellee United Security Life Insurance Company, referred to herein as United.
The pivotal issue litigated in the district court was the liability of United to appellant on a written contract of guaranty in the form of a letter, allegedly executed on behalf of United by its former president, W. L. DeLong. More specifically, the Court was required to decide whether DeLong had actual or apparent authority to bind United by the guaranty upon which appellant’s claim for relief is premised. Judge Henley, in a soundly reasoned opinion, persuasively demonstrated that DeLong lacked such authority. 286 F.Supp. 173, 176-182 (E.D.Ark.1968).
We reject as untenable appellant’s contention that the evidence established as a matter of law that the instrument under consideration constituted a valid and binding obligation of United, and that consequently the district court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.
We have canvassed the voluminous record and are convinced that the evidence clearly supports the judgment of dismissal. Indeed, we find scant, if any, probative evidence to support appellant’s claim. The district court was fully justified in finding on the evidence presented that DeLong had no authority to bind United by the instrument sued on. Certainly, analysis of the entire record does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
The judgment is affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the counsel for the appellant?
A. none (pro se)
B. court appointed
C. legal aid or public defender
D. private
E. government - US
F. government - state or local
G. interest group, union, professional group
H. other or not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D