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:
Mike THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 82-8688
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 23, 1983.
Thomas H. Hyman, Cordele, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ronald C. Henson, Paula A. Hilburn, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, JOHNSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mike Thomas, appellant, filed this action against Farmville Manufacturing Company, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, in the Superior Court, Crisp County, State of Georgia, on July 12, 1982. The case was removed by Farmville on August 11, 1982, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441. A motion to dismiss was filed at the same time as the removal petition. On August 27, 1982, the district court determined and held “that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint .should be sustained in that it appears that the Plaintiff’s complaint does not adequately set forth a cause of action to enable the Plaintiff to recover under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.”
On September 10, 1982, the plaintiff moved to vacate the order of dismissal and also requested leave to amend the complaint; to this motion plaintiff attached a proposed amendment. On October 1, 1982,’ the district court denied the motions to vacate the order of dismissal and to grant leave to amend the complaint.
The standard of review for a denial. of leave to amend, and for denial of a Rule 59(e) motion, is abuse of discretion. Stutts v. Freeman, 694 F.2d 666, 669 (11th Cir.1983); Paschal v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 666 F.2d 1381, 1384 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1109, 102 S.Ct. 2911, 73 L.Ed.2d 1319 (1982). A grant of leave to amend is particularly appropriate following dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, Griggs v. Hinds Junior College, 563 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir.1977), and, in the absence. of a declared or apparent reason, an outright refusal to grant leave to amend is an abuse of discretion. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). The application of these principles to this case leads to the conclusion that the denial of leave to amend by the district court was an abuse of discretion.
The order dismissing the complaint is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions to allow the filing of an amended complaint.

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: 0