Task: songer_appel1_8_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 first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a decree forfeiting to the United States certain property and money belonging to John C. Prevatt and seized during a search predicated upon an affidavit that the property and money were being used in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4411, 4412, 4901(a) and 7203. We reverse.
In the criminal proceedings, Prevatt asserted the fifth amendment privilege. On the authority of Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, the District Court dismissed the criminal action.
In the civil forfeiture proceedings, Prevatt was granted leave to intervene; and, claiming to be the owner of the property and money that was the subject matter of the libel of information, he filed a petition and claim. After a non-jury trial the District Court found that the property and money seized had been used in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4411, 4412, and 7203 and were therefore subject to forfeiture.
The question involved here has been squarely met and decided adversely to the Government in United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 1971, 401 U.S. 715, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded to the District Court with directions that the property and money, which comprised the subject matter of the forfeiture proceedings, be returned to intervenor-claimant Prevatt.
Reversed and remanded with directions.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?
A. Indian Tribes
B. Foreign Government
C. Multi-state agencies, boards, etc. (e.g., Port Authority of NY)
D. International Organizations
E. Other
F. Not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: E