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)", specifically "construction". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Loren E. THOMPSON, d/b/a Parkersburg Die and Tool Company, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7869.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 24, 1959.
Decided June 25, 1959.
Lawrence M. Ronning and Robert Evans Stealey, Parkersburg, W. Va. (Ron-ning & Bailey, and McCluer, Davis, Mc-Dougle, Stealey & Morris, Parkersburg, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Albert M. Morgan, U. S. Atty., Mor-gantown, W. Va. (Robert J. Schleuss, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairmont, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
No question of law is presented by this appeal. Though the controlling law is federal, rather than state as assumed below, there is no apparent difference in the governing rules. The sole question is whether the facts require an inference that the United States waived ■ the defaults of its contractor with respect to the contract involved in count 1 of the complaint. That may have been a permissible inference, but the facts as found and recited in the opinion of the District Court do not require it. The factual question was settled by the findings of the District Court which we must accept.
Affirmed.
. United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174, 183, 64 S.Ct. 908, 88 L.Ed. 1209; S.R.A., Inc. v. State of Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 564, 66 S.Ct. 749, 90 L.Ed. 851.
. 168 F.Supp. 281.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "construction". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
residential
commercial or industrial
other
unclear

Answer: 3