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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
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 is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

Opinion:
TOWN PARK HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 71-1055.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 10, 1971.
Wayne C. Marsh, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner-appellant; Charles M. Collins, Memphis, Tenn., on brief.
Jane Edmisten, Atty., Tax. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee; Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks and Thomas L. Stapleton, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before BROOKS, MILLER and KENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The issue on appeal and before the Tax Court is whether the appellant realized a gain when it withdrew in 1964 a deposit which had been made by the state of Tennessee in a condemnation proceeding in Tennessee State court involving a taking of the plaintiff’s property. The amount deposited by the state and withdrawn by the taxpayer in the year 1964 was the sum of $722,476.00. The Commissioner determined a deficiency in the taxpayer’s federal income tax for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1965 in the amount of $112,223.74. He determined that the taxpayer had not reinvested the proceeds received on the condemnation of its property within the time limit as prescribed by section 1033(a)(3)(B) (i), I.R.C.1954, and therefore that the taxpayer was not entitled to treat the gain thereon as one entitled to nonrecognition treatment. The nonrecognition feature of section 1033(a)(3)(B) in effect at the time here involved was that any taxpayer whose property is involuntarily converted may limit the recognition for tax purposes of any gain realized by such conversion if he replaces such property with other property similar or related in use within a period of one year “after the close of the first taxable year in which any part of the gain upon the conversion is realized.”
In this ease it is conceded that the taxpayer did not reinvest the proceeds derived from the withdrawal of the condemnation deposit within the one-year period. Its insistence is that the gain was not realized during the year that the deposit was withdrawn but was realized when the amount of compensation that it was to receive as a result of the condemnation was finally determined in a later year in the condemnation proceeding and title to the property was vested by the court in the condemning authority.
In upholding the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner, the Tax Court applied the “claim of right” doctrine first enunciated by the Supreme Court in North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 424, 52 S.Ct. 613, 615, 76 L.Ed. 1197 (1932). In that case the doctrine was stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis as follows:
If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.
The Tax Court analyzed the condemnation procedure in Tennessee (Tenn.Code Ann. [1969 Cum.Supp.] Sections 23-1526 through 23-1541), and was of the opinion that when a deposit is made by the condemning authority under the Tennessee procedure the taxpayer upon withdrawing the deposit obtained the unrestricted use of the funds under a claim of right. The Court was of the view that when the deposit was made in the present taxpayer’s case and an order of condemnation entered, the property was thereby appropriated to the use of the state and what remained in the taxpayer was the bare legal title to the property.
Having reviewed the record and the applicable authorities, we are of the opinion that the Tax Court was correct in applying the claim of right doctrine as enunciated in North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, swpra. It follows that it was correct in its ultimate determination and finding that the taxpayer was not entitled to the benefit of the nonrecognition provisions of the Act in effect during the times here involved.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decision of the Tax Court entered on September 14, 1970 be and the same is hereby affirmed on the basis of its memorandum opinion as reported in 29 T.C.M. 1150.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 2