Task: songer_counsel2

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.
Your task is to determine the nature of the counsel for the respondent. If name of attorney was given with no other indication of affiliation, assume it is private - unless a government agency was the party

GEE, Circuit Judge.
Cantu, charged with cocaine distribution and an associated conspiracy, appeals from denial by the trial judge of his motion to revoke an order detaining him without bail. Our review of such actions by the district court is limited, and we have stated that its order must be sustained “if it is supported by the proceedings” in that court. United States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185, 1189 (1986), citing and quoting from United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir.1985). The judge concluded that Cantu presented a substantial risk of flight and that no set of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance at trial. We agree.
Cantu, a resident alien, is a Mexican citizen who visits Mexico several times a year and has a sister residing there. He is divorced, unemployed, and owns no property in this country. The charges against Cantu — charges which the government has produced credible evidence upholding — are serious ones indeed, exposing him upon conviction to maximum punishments of forty years in prison and a half-million dollar fine. In such circumstances we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying Cantu bail.
AFFIRMED.
. As an appellate court, we possess no greater competence to review factual findings from this cold record than from one assembled at a trial on the merits. That being the case, the "clearly erroneous” standard seems a proper gauge of record support for such findings. See e.g. United States v. Kreczmer, 636 F.2d 108, 110 (5th Cir. 1981)

Question: What is the nature of the counsel for the respondent?
A. none (pro se)
B. court appointed
C. legal aid or public defender
D. private
E. government - US
F. government - state or local
G. interest group, union, professional group
H. other or not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: E