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 concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
FAIRCLOTH v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3235.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Jan. 20, 1932.
T. Morris Wampler, of Washington, D. C. (William L. Marbury and Jesse Slingluff, Jr., both of Baltimore, Md., and Joseph C. Turco, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
■Simon E. Sobeloff, U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md. (Charles G. Page, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty, by a jury, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, of violating section 592, tit. 12, USCA. There were twelve counts in the indictment against appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the defendant, whieh charged him with aiding and abetting one Schatz, in the fraudulent misapplication of the funds of the First National Bank of Mt. Ranier, Md. Schatz, who was cashier of the bank, and who was jointly indicted with the defendant, pleaded guilty, and was used as a witness for the government at defendant’s trial. Defendant was sentenced by the trial judge to serve fifteen months in the penitentiary, from whieh judgment this appeal was brought.
The only points relied upon as error in the trial below relate to the refusal of the trial judge to give instructions requested on behalf of the defendant on three propositions :
(1) An instruction dealing with the presumption of innocence. Defendant’s instruction No. 1.
(2) An instruction to the effect that evidence of good character might alone create a reasonable doubt that would justify acquittal. Defendant’s instruction No. 4.
(3) An instruction that the testimony of an accomplice should be received with great care and caution. Defendant’s instruction No. 5.
A” court is not required to adopt the language of a requested instruction, even though it states a correct proposition of law, if the same instructions are fully and substantially covered by instruction in the court’s own language in the oral charge to the jury. Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 39 S. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550; Dunagan v. Appalachian Power Co. (C. C. A.) 23 F.(2d) 395; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Coffey (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 320.
A careful study of the judge’s charge to the jury shows that he correctly stated the law as to the presumption of innocence, the weight to be given evidence of the good character of the defendant, and warned the jury that Schatz, the accomplice, was a confessed criminal. .The charge substantially covered the three instructions asked, and there was no error in the rejection of these instructions in the language in whieh they were couched.
In addition to this, there was no objection to the charge at its conclusion, and no complaint on behalf of the defendant that the charge did not fully cover the points raised in the requested charges. There was only a formal exception to the refusal to give the instructions as requested. Baker v. United States (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 903, and eases there cited.
In the assignments of errors, no error was alleged in the court’s refusal of defendant’s fourth and fifth instructions. (Points 2 and 3.) Rule 11 of this court reads in part as follows: “Assignment of Errors: The appellant or petitioner shall file with the clerk of the court below, with his petition for appeal, an assignment of errors, whieh shall set out separately and particularly each-error asserted and intended to be urged. * * * Such assignment of errors shall form part of the transcript of the record and be printed with it. When this rule is not complied with, counsel will not be heard, except at the request of the court; and errors not assigned according to this rule will be disregarded, but the court, at its option, may notice a plain error not assigned.”
Here there is no plain error; in fact, no error. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
bank
insurance
savings and loan
credit union
other pension fund
other financial institution or investment company
unclear

Answer: 1