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.

PER CURIAM.
The appellants Patterson and Kimball were convicted in the court below of the crime of escaping from The Federal Reformatory at Petersburg, Virginia, in which they were confined. After conviction and sentence they moved that the judgment of the court be set aside and that they be granted a new trial on the ground that they had already been punished for the escape in that after their return to the reformatory they had been placed in soli iary confinement for a certain period and the “good time” which they had earned had been revoked. Aside from the fact that the granting of a new trial was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court which may not be disturbed in the absence of abuse, it is perfectly clear that the motions here were absolutely lacking in merit. Criminal prosecution for the crime of escape is not prohibited under the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because a convict guilty thereof has upon his recapture been subjected to discipline by the prison authorities for the violation of prison discipline involved. Pagliaro v. Cox, Warden, 8 Cir., 143 F.2d 900.
Affirmed on both Appeals.

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: G