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)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
CARLISLE LUMBER CO. v. HOPE et al.
No. 8159.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 31, 1936.
Theodore B. Bruener, of Aberdeen, Wash., ánd Charles H. Paul, of Long-view, Wash., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., Owen P. Hughes, Asst. U. S. Atty., and E. J. Eagen, all of Seattle, Wash., Clifford D. O’Brien, of Portland, Or., and Bertram Edises, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Hope.
Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has applied for an injunction pending appeal in the above-entitled matter. Appellant filed a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, seeking an injunction against appellee Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, and the members of that board, to prevent consideration of a complaint filed before it alleging unfair labor practice, as defined in the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S. C.A. § 151 et seq.), otherwise known as the Wagner Bill, enacted by Congress July 5, 1935. The trial court dismissed the bill and denied the injunctive relief.
The principal point urged by appellant as a ground for the issuance of an injunction by this court is that it is not engaged in interstate commerce, but that its activities are solely intrastate.
It was conceded on the argument by the appellee'that the National Labor Relations Board would have no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce or persons engaged solely therein. The National Labor Act provides for a review of the decision of the Board by the Circuit Court of Appeals, or, in certain cases, -by the District Court (section 10 [29 U.S.C.A. § 160]).
We are not persuaded that irreparable injury would result to the appellant from the hearing before the Board where the order of the Board is without force until a hearing before a court and an order of the court based thereon. Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we deny the application for temporary injunction without determining either the constitutionality of the act nor the rights of the appellant upon final hearing.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3