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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Your task is to determine which category of state government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
HANN, Warden, v. HAWK.
No. 14564.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
July 20, 1953.
Robert A. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Nebraska (Clarence S. Beck, Ally. Gen. of Nebraska, was with him on the brief), for appellant.
Richard W. Smith, Miami, Okl., for ap-pellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNS EN. and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, granting the application of the appellee, Henry Hawk, for a writ of habeas corpus and releasing him from imprisonment in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, where he had been held under a sentence of life imprisonment based upon a State court conviction for murder.
The appeal was argued at the November 1952 session of this Court, but, before it was decided, Henry Hawk died, at Council Bluffs, Iowa, on April 21, 1953. We are urged by counsel to decide the case, notwithstanding the death, of Hawk.
This case obviously became moot upon Hawk’s death, and this Court would not be justified in deciding questions which have become academic, no matter how interesting they may be. Following the established practice in dealing with a case such as this which became moot pending a decision of this Court on the merits, the judgment appealed from is vacated and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss it. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104,95 L.Ed. 36.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Which category of state government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 5