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:
NEWCOMB et al. v. YORK ICE MACHINERY CORPORATION.
No. 6994.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 4, 1934.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1934.
Leonard Brown and M. A. Childers, both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.
Leo Brewer, of San Antonio, Tex., and R. Wayne Lawler, of Houston, Tex., for ap-pellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
WALKER, Circuit Judge.
When this case was here on a former appeal, this court held that the trial court had erred in striking appellants’ answer to' the bill, which put in issue allegations of the bill and set up matters of set-off and counterclaim, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Newcomb v. York Ice Machinery Corporation (C. C. A.) 56 F.(2d) 576. For a statement of the issues raised by the bill and the answer thereto reference is made to the opinion rendered when the case was here on the first appeal. Upon a consideration of the evidence adduced in the trial after the re-mandment of the cause the court found in favor of the appellee on the issues raised, and decreed accordingly. An examination of the evidence has led us to the conclusion that it duly supported the court’s findings of fact, and that none of those findings is properly subject to be set aside by this court. We think no useful purpose would be served by a recital or discussion of that evidence.
Error was assigned on the action of the court in holding that the burden was on the appellants, defendants below, to prove allegations of the answer to the bill by way of counterclaim as to the breach of the warranty, contained in the contract sued on for the sale by the appellee to the appellant Newcomb of an ice-making machine, of the ice-maldng capacity of that machine. The allegations referred to were of a matter of affirmative defense, the burden of proving which was on the appellants. Buckstaff v. Russell, 151 U. S. 626, 14 S. Ct. 448, 38 L. Ed. 292; O. C. Barber Mining & Fertilizing Co. v. Brown Hoisting Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 258 F. 1; 24 R. C. L. 162.
The record shows no reversible error. The decree 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?

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: 7