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:
BELK-LINDSEY COMPANY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Inc., Appellant, v. ALTHEIMER & BAER, INC., Appellee.
No. 19152.
United States Court oi Appeals Fifth Circuit.
March 20, 1962.
Wm. O. Mehrtens, James E. Glass, Miami, Fla., for appellant; Mershons, Sawyer, Johnston, Simmons & Dunwody, Miami, Fla., of counsel.
Ernest J. London, Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a final judgment entered upon findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court sitting without a jury voiding as to appellee only the sale of a stock of goods to appellant by a debtor of appellee, impressing the stock with an equitable lien in favor of appellee for the amount due, and making appellant a constructive trustee of the assets for the benefit of appellee to the extent of the lien. The findings that seller was insolvent at the time of the conveyance, that it was made to hinder and delay the collection of the claim of appellee then in pending litigation, and to give preference over appellee to other creditors, that appellant had knowledge of such facts and circumstances as would have induced an ordinary prudent person to make inquiry, which inquiry would have led to the discovery of such purpose of seller and that the inquiry was not made, and also that the notice to creditors required under the Florida Bulk Sales statute was not given are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., James v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 687. The conclusions drawn from the findings having adequate support and no prejudicial error appearing, we AFFIRM. F. S.A. §§ 608, 55, 726.01, 726.02, 726.03 and 726.04; Jackson v. Citizen’s Bank & Trust Co., 1907, 53 Fla. 265, 44 So. 516; Williams v. American Crafts Inc., Fla.App., 1961, 129 So.2d 165; Fla.Jur., Fraudulent Conveyances, § 8.

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: 2