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:
McCARTHY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8721.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Oct. 16, 1944.
Decided Nov. 6, 1944.
Mr. Jerome F. Barnard, of Washington, D. C. (appointed by District Court) for appellant.
Mr. John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted for forging a check issued by the Washington Terminal Company of Washington, D. C. After examining the evidence we believe that the court should have directed a verdict of not guilty at the close of the case.
The only direct testimony on the alleged forgery by the defendant is that of a handwriting expert who admitted there were many dissimilarities between the defendant’s handwriting and the endorsement on the check. The expert said that but for the single letter “J” in “Jack” on the check he would not have been there to testify.
To support this inconclusive handwriting testimony the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, all of which was based on very doubtful inferences. It showed (1) that the defendant was one of a number of persons who might have stolen the check from the Washington Terminal Company; (2) that he was one of a number of persons who might have cashed it; (3) that defendant’s wife was seriously ill and he needed money badly; (4) that after his wife’s death he left Washington for his sister’s home in Cincinnati, later going to Colorado, notifying both his draft board and the post office of his change of address.
His necessitous circumstances were relied on as showing motive. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence that he knew he was even suspected of the crime when he left, his departure to visit his sister was used before the jury to show consciousness of guilt.
While we do not assert that handwriting testimony by itself may not in some cases be sufficient to sustain a conviction of forgery, we think that the record in this case throws too much doubt on defendant’s guilt to sustain a verdict.
Reverse4 and remanded.

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