Task: songer_typeiss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the general category of issues discussed in the opinion of the court. Choose among the following categories. Criminal and prisioner petitions- includes appeals of conviction, petitions for post conviction relief, habeas corpus petitions, and other prisoner petitions which challenge the validity of the conviction or the sentence or the validity of continued confinement. Civil - Government - these will include appeals from administrative agencies (e.g., OSHA,FDA), the decisions of administrative law judges, or the decisions of independent regulatory agencies (e.g., NLRB, FCC,SEC). The focus in administrative law is usually on procedural principles that apply to administrative agencies as they affect private interests, primarily through rulemaking and adjudication. Tort actions against the government, including petitions by prisoners which challenge the conditions of their confinement or which seek damages for torts committed by prion officials or by police fit in this category. In addition, this category will include suits over taxes and claims for benefits from government. Diversity of Citizenship - civil cases involving disputes between citizens of different states (remember that businesses have state citizenship). These cases will always involve the application of state or local law. If the case is centrally concerned with the application or interpretation of federal law then it is not a diversity case. Civil Disputes - Private - includes all civil cases that do not fit in any of the above categories. The opposing litigants will be individuals, businesses or groups.

PER CURIAM:
Appellant Majors appeals from his conviction on three counts. Count 1 charged conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count 2 charged possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count 3 charged distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Upon conviction, appellant was sentenced to custody and a special parole term on each count. Each sentence was the same and each was to run concurrently with the others.
Strong circumstantial evidence linking appellant with a heroin transaction through a Mr. Coby to undercover drug enforcement officers and a confidential informant was furnished by the testimony of the drug enforcement officers. Furthermore, Coby, who had previously entered a guilty plea to narcotics charges growing out of the same transaction, testified, giving direct evidence (not hearsay) of appellant’s participation in the transaction. Although Coby was subjected to vigorous and skillful cross-examination designed to discredit his testimony, it never changed and the jury apparently found him to be a credible witness.
Coby’s testimony on direct was substantiated by the testimony of his former attorney to the effect that Coby’s version of the transaction, given to this attorney shortly after he was arrested, was entirely consistent with the testimony he had given on the witness stand. This testimony was properly admitted. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) Federal Rules of Evidence. It was not tendered nor admitted as the otherwise hearsay declaration of a coconspirator.
We have carefully examined appellant’s contentions. While appellant urges that the evidence, leaving out the testimony of Coby, would have been insufficient for conviction, we need not address that contention because the testimony of Coby was taken and was clearly sufficient. In his testimony, Coby described in careful detail the personal participation of Majors in selling the heroin. Evidence of Majors’ participation in a conspiracy, though less than that of his possession and distribution, was nevertheless sufficient. Coby, who admitted to having visited appellant’s residence on a number of occasions, not socially, testified that on this occasion, when he first addressed appellant, he merely said, “I want to get two ounces,” whereupon appellant produced the heroin. We need not address the concurrent sentence doctrine, for we find that the evidence was sufficient for conviction on all three counts.
It was proper for the court to leave it up to the jury, under proper instructions, to evaluate the credibility of Coby and to evaluate the weight of appellant’s attempted alibi evidence. While not necessary to a conviction, the testimony of Coby was corroborated by the testimony of the agents.
For the foregoing reasons, the conviction on all three counts is
AFFIRMED.

Question: What is the general category of issues discussed in the opinion of the court?
A. criminal and prisoner petitions
B. civil - government
C. diversity of citizenship
D. civil - private
E. other, not applicable
F. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A