Task: songer_respond1_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 first 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 OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is presently incarcerated in a state correctional institution serving a life sentence imposed following a conviction by a jury of first-degree murder. An appeal from the conviction was taken to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed. Commonwealth v. Stokes, 409 Pa. 268, 186 A.2d 5 (1962). The petitioner then sought relief under the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Hearing Act of 1966. Relief was denied by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, and the denial was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Stokes, 440 Pa. 642, 270 A.2d 624 (1970).
A petition for habeas corpus was then filed in the district court on the ground that the confession introduced against petitioner at his original trial was coerced. The district judge carefully reviewed the entire record of the state proceedings, see Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), concluded that the confession was voluntary, and denied the petition for habeas corpus.
Based upon our own independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
An appropriate order will be entered.

Question: This question concerns the first 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: F