Task: songer_respond1_3_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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "cabinet level department". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, A & H Transportation, Inc., sought to have the District Court of Maryland convene a special grand jury under instructions to investigate alleged violations of the antitrust laws by the major oil companies doing business in the Baltimore area. The application was considered in an opinion filed April 18, 1963, written by Chief Judge Thomsen of the District Court of Maryland, with the concurrence of Judges Watkins, Northrop and Winter, the other Judges of that Court. The petitioner has sought to bring the matter here by appeal. Since it clearly is an unappealable order, we have treated the notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the District Court of Maryland to convene a special grand jury and require it to conduct the kind of investigation the petitioner seeks.
It appears that Mr. Waller, the petitioner’s president, has presented complaints of alleged violations of the antitrust laws to the Department of Justice. Though there has been some official inquiry, no indictments have been returned or requested. Mr. Waller has also written to the foreman of a regularly convened grand jury in Baltimore. That grand jury did not care to hear him, however, though his communications were passed on to the District Attorney. Earlier, one of Mr. Waller’s companies, Savon Gas Stations, had brought a civil antitrust action against Shell Oil Company, in which the defendant prevailed.
When its petition was presented to the District Court, the petitioner also presented a certified copy of the record in an unrelated action, Del-Way Petroleum Company, Inc., et al., v. Cities Service Oil Company, a ease in the District Court of Maryland which was ended before trial.
We have considered all of the foregoing matters in addition to the petitioner’s allegations that the major oil companies are engaged in conspiracies to fix prices in the Baltimore area, are selling gasoline at prices below their cost, and are engaging in other .practices designed to or having the effect of driving independent oil dealers out of business.
The authority to convene or discharge a grand jury is vested in the District Court. **8 Its exercise of its discretion to convene, or not to convene, a special grand jury, or to discharge a grand jury, is not reviewable on appeal, and a Court of Appeals cannot by mandamus, or any other extraordinary writ, inject itself into the discretionary area reserved to the District Court.
We find here no such abuse of discretion as would justify issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus. It is evident from the Court’s opinion that it gave careful consideration to the petitioner’s request and to the alternative remedies, including a civil action for treble damages, available to the petitioner.
Since we find no abuse of the discretion lodged in the District Court, the petition for a writ of mandamus must be dismissed.
Dismissed.
. Savon Gas Stations No. 6, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company, D.C., 203 F.Supp. 529, aff'd. 4 Cir., 309 F.2d 306.
. Rule 6, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
. In re Texas Co., 91 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 201 F.2d 177; Morris v. United States, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 912.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "cabinet level department". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?
A. Department of Agriculture
B. Department of Commerce
C. Department of Defense (includes War Department and Navy Department)
D. Department of Education
E. Department of Energy
F. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
G. Department of Health & Human Services
H. Department of Housing and Urban Development
I. Department of Interior
J. Department of Justice (does not include FBI or parole boards; does include US Attorneys)
K. Department of Labor (except OSHA)
L. Post Office Department
M. Department of State
N. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board
O. Department of the Treasury (except IRS)
P. Department of Veterans Affairs
Answer:

Answer: J