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 determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
W. O. SCHOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam A. GILPIN and Farm Bureau Oil Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12259.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
June 2, 1958.
Kramer, Campbell, Costello & Wieehert, East St. Louis, Ill., Wm. C. Schock, Fordyce, Mayne, Hartman, Renard & Stribling, Thomas Rowe Schwarz, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
John P. Wham, Centralia, Ill., John M. Ferguson, East St. Louis, Ill., Stewart A. Pearce, Carmi, Ill., Leigh M. Kagy,. East St. Louis, Ill., Kern & Pearce,, Carmi, Ill., Baker, Kagy & Wagner, East St. Louis, Ill., of counsel, for appellees.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and. SCHNACKENBERG and HASTINGS, Circuit Judges.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
By his amended complaint filed in the' district court, plaintiff sought cancellation of releases executed by him in favor of defendant Gilpin and a confirmation of plaintiff’s claimed interest in a certain oil lease. Defendants having filed answers, the case was tried by the district court without a jury and it was stipulated that the releases might be set aside and that the sole issue became the nature and extent, if any, of plaintiff’s interest in certain oil production in a tract of" land in White county, Illinois.
The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a judgment in favor of defendants, from, which this appeal was taken by plaintiff.
An opinion was filed by the district court, 150 F.Supp. 471. In that opinion, the lower court has adequately and correctly marshaled the pertinent facts and applied to them the correct principles of law. It has reached a right result. We' see no reason to encumber the shelves of the law libraries with an expression of our views. We are content to adopt the opinion of the district court, which we~ now do.
For that reason, the judgment from, which the appeal was taken is affirmed-
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 1