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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
In re KISSINGER. KISSINGER v. KELI.
No. 4901.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
July 18, 1933.
Bernard A. Klatt, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.
Edward H. Clemens, of Sheboygan, Wis., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal presents a single issue, namely, whether the District Court erred in affirming the order of the referee in bankruptcy directing the trustee to take possession of certain premises located in Sheboygan, Wis., scheduled by the bankrupt as belonging' to himself, and upon which he claimed exemption by virtue of the Wisconsin Statutes, section 272.20, relating to homestead. The record indicates that there was substantial evidence introduced tending to show that appellant had never adopted the premises in question as his homestead, having resided in Madison, Wis., where he was in business for over a year prior to the purchase of the property, and having lived in the home of his parents in a different town after he bought it. Such evidence would very well warrant the order of the referee denying the claim of homestead, and this court has no power to question the interpretation of the evidence upon which the finding was based. We are warranted in inferring that appellant has reached the same conclusion from the fact that he failed to appear at the argument of the cause.
Order affirmed.

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

Choices:
auto industry
chemical industry
drug industry
food industry
oil & gas industry
clothing & textile industry
electronic industry
alcohol and tobacco industry
other
unclear

Answer: 9