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:
James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. MORRIS and Warren G. Morris, Individually, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 30423
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 28, 1971.
Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 31, 1971.
W. H. Albritton, Andalusia, Ala., James W. Kelly, Geneva, Ala., for defendants-appellants; Albrittons & Rankin, Andalusia, Ala., of counsel.
Roger J. Martinson, Atlanta, Ga., Peter G. Nash, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Mar-golin, Associate Sol., Beverley R. Wor-rell, Regional Sol., Carin Ann Clauss, Judith Bleich Kahn, Attys., United States Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants complain of the decision of the district court in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under the provisions of § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 217. The Secretary contended that the appellants (employers) were violating provisions of §§ 15(a) (2) and 15(a) (5) of the Act and sought an injunction to restrain such violations and further to restrain the appellants from withholding payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation alleged to be due certain employees. Since the case was submitted upon a written stipulation of facts, there is no factual dispute under review. The district court granted the relief sought except that it refused to enjoin and restrain the appellants from future violations of the Act.
We have given full consideration to the contentions of the parties and find ourselves in agreement with the opinion and judgment of the district court. George P. Shultz (James D. Hodgson), Secretary of Labor v. William P. Morris and Warren G. Morris, 315 F.Supp. 558 (M.D.Ala.1970).
The judgment is affirmed.
. The appellants do not here contest the findings and conclusions of the district court that the three stores involved did constitute an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Act as amended.

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: 9