Task: songer_genapel1

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 is to determine the nature of the first listed appellant.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment sustaining an award of compensation to the surviving widow of a longshoreman under the Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The judgment is challenged here only on the ground that the widow, who was not living with her husband at the time of his injury and death, was not shown to be living apart from him for justifiable cause or by reason of his desertion, such proof being essential to recovery under the Act.
The record contains positive testimony that the claimant and the decedent were married in 1940 and lived together as husband and wife for several months; that, after an argument about financial affairs, the husband abruptly left the marital domicile and went to live with another woman; that he repeatedly refused to return to his wife, though asked by her to do so; that he continued to provide his wife with small sums of money for living expenses, and offered to let her come to him in the home of the other woman, which she declined to do; and that claimant was at all times ready and willing to have decedent return to their home to live, and so advised him, but he remained unwilling to come back until hospitalized by the injury causing his death.
Witnesses for appellant contradicted much of this testimony, and gave a different version of the circumstances surrounding the separation, but the deputy commissioner believed the testimony outlined above, and found as a fact that claimant was living apart from her husband at the time of his injury and death for justifiable cause and by reason of his desertion. Being thus supported by substantial evidence, the finding of the deputy commissioner is conclusive upon this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
33 U.S.C.A. §§ 902(16), 904, and 909.
South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U.S. 251, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L.Ed. 732.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed appellant?
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: A