Task: songer_genapel2

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 second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment against the principal and sureties ón a bond given to procure the release of a motorboat which was seized, and against which forfeiture proceedings were instituted. The appeal was taken by one of the sureties, who complains of the judgment on the sole ground that there was no valid service of the citation to him in the proceeding. The appellant, without raising any question as to the service of process upon him, appeared in the cause and excepted to the libel therein on the ground that it sets forth no cause of action. By appearing and invoking the court’s decision as to the merits of the claim asserted in the libel, the appellant waived any defect in the service of process upon him. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 S. Ct. 982, 35 L. Ed. 659; Pease v. Rathbun-Jones Engineering Co., 228 F. 273, 142 C. C. A. 565.
The judgment is affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for 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: I