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:
Roy A. OAKLEY et al., Appellants, v. Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Appellees. Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Appellants, v. Roy A. OAKLEY et al., Appellees. Roy A. OAKLEY et al., Appellants, v. Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States et al., Appellees.
Nos. 12918, 12971, 13033.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Argued Jan. 31, 1956.
Decided March 29, 1956.
Mr. Josiah Lyman, Washington, D. C., for appellants in Nos. 12,918 and 13,023, and appellees in No. 12,971.
Mr. William F. Becker, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees in Nos. 12,918 and 13,023 and appellants in No. 12,971.
Mr. Oliver Gasch, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellants in No. 12,971.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This litigation is similar to the Tour-lanes cases (Tourlanes Publishing Co. v. Summerfield), 97 U.S.App.D.C. -, 231 F.2d 773. Oakley is a photographer and not a publisher. However, he sells numerous admittedly innocuous books and publications, in addition to the photographs found by the Post Office Department to be obscene. The judgment of the District Court, which was similar to its order in Tourlanes, will likewise be affirmed (No. 12,971). During oral argument, counsel for Oakley made the same statement concerning his cross-appeal as was made by counsel for Tour-lanes. On a like basis, the appeals by Oakley will be dismissed (Nos. 12,918 and 13,023).
So ordered.

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: 0