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.

Opinion:
Willie L. AINSWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 25842.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1971.
Bertram L. Potter, of Potter, Creim & Rogers, Pasadena, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Chief, Civ. Div., Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWNING, HUFSTEDLER, and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant instituted this action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for review of the Secretary’s final decision disallowing appellant’s claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223 of the Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. The district court entered summary judgment for the Secretary.
While we are not to try the claim de novo, “[t]his does not mean that it was intended that the courts should abdicate their conventional judicial function to review,” McMullen v. Celebrezze, 335 F.2d 811, 814 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1964). We cannot escape our duty “to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached have a reasonable basis in law.” Hicks v. Gardner, 393 F.2d 299, 302 (4th Cir. 1968). See also Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Celebrezze v. Bolas, 316 F.2d 498, 501 (8th Cir. 1963); Boyd v. Folsom, 257 F.2d 778, 781 (3d Cir. 1958). If, based upon the record as a whole, the Secretary’s conclusions are rational, “they must be upheld; but if, for example, reliance has been placed upon one portion of the record to the disregard of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the courts are equally bound to decide against the Secretary.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964).
We have carefully examined the entire record in light of the above standard of review. We conclude that the record as a whole supports the Secretary’s findings.
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?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 8