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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
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 first listed respondent.

Opinion:
Otis HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16773.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit
Dec. 27, 1961.
Lewis E. Pierce, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant, Kenneth K. Simon, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief.
William A. Kitchen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee, F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., on the brief.
Before SANBORN, MATTHES and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Otis Harris was charged by indictment with having, “on or about December 4, 1960, and about two months prior thereto,” carried on the business of a retail liquor dealer at Sedalia, Missouri, and having willfully failed to pay the special tax as required by law, in violation of Section 5691, Title 26 United States Code. On his plea of not guilty, he was tried to a jury, found guilty, and on April 7, 1961 sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction. At his trial Harris was represented by counsel of his own choosing. On this appeal he has retained other counsel to represent him.
During the trial of Harris, no motion for a directed verdict of acquittal was made; there was no request for a peremptory instruction of not guilty; and no exceptions were taken to the court’s instructions to the jury.
Present counsel for Harris, while recognizing the general rule that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction is not reviewable absent a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal made at the close of the evidence, argue that in order to prevent a serious miscarriage of justice this „ i • i, , t ■ x x i u i Court m the public interest should rule upon the question of the adequacy of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Counsel also argue that, although no exceptions were taken to any of the trial court’s instructions to the jury, this Court should consider whether they were adequate and accurate. Review of the authority of the trial court to impose a maximum sentence is also sought.
It is true that a federal appellate court, in the exercise of a sound discretion and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, may notice plain and vital errors occurring during the trial of a criminal case although not properly preserved for review, by motion, objection or exception. Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Crimmal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.; Page v. United States, 8 Cir., 282 F.2d 807, 810 and cases cited.
We are convinced, from an examination of the record on appeal, that this *s n°t the kind of a case that would justify the disregard by this Court of the ordinary rules of appellate review. “It is °uly in exceptional cases that this Court will Pass upon a question of law first raised on appeal.” Zuckerman v. McCulley, 8 Cir., 170 F.2d 1015, 1018.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Mandate will issue forthwith.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?

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: 2