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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

Opinion:
Victoria VAN NIEUWENHOVE and Jeanne Van Nieuwenhove, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CUNARD STEAM-SHIP CO., Limited, etc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11130.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1954.
George C. Rabens, Isadore I. Feinglass, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Daniel M. Healy, Walter C. Healy, Chicago, for appellee.
Before MAJOR, FINNEGAN and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal plaintiffs ask us to reverse an order, entered below, setting aside a jury verdict awarding damages of $5,000 to Victoria Van Nieuwenhove and $1,000 to Jeanne Van Nieuwenhove, respectively. At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence and after all the evidence, defendant, The Cunard Steam-Ship Co., Limited, a foreign corporation, moved for a directed verdict. In his order, setting aside that verdict and entering judgment for the defendant, the trial judge stated that defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. We agree.
During a rough sea, Jeanne Van Nieuwenhove and Victoria Van Nieuwenhove sustained injuries when a ladder came out of slots in the bulkhead of their stateroom and fell on Jeanne who was pitched with the ladder and a chair on to Victoria. Prior to this episode, Victoria had moved the same ladder from its position adjacent to the double-decker berths, where she had previously used it to reach her upper berth. Victoria shifted this ladder from bedside to bulkhead at Jeanne’s request; that she, Jeanne, could get out of the lower bed. There were prongs on the ladder top for the purpose of hanging it in slots on the bulkhead. No evidence that the ladder, metal prongs or hooks, clip, or slots were unsafe or defective appears in this record.
Certainly in the state of this record the trial judge was not bound to send plaintiffs’ flimsy case to the jury. Yet he followed allowable practice by reserving his decision under Rule 50, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., on defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. By taking post-verdict action he saved these parties expense of another trial if we had disagreed with the entry of judgment for the defendant. But this judgment, and trial judge’s action, can be verified by a survey of the evidence since it utterly fails to show that plaintiff were injured by defendant’s negligence. Even when we construe this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, accept as true all of their evidence, together with all reasonable inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, one conclusion emerges diametrically opposed to plaintiffs’ right to recover. Galloway v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 372, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458. In our opinion this verdict was not predicated upon substantial evidence.
We think it was correct for the trial judge to deny plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint after verdict and judgment. Their proposed amendment would simply supply opinions of the pleader and his conclusions of law in an effort to bridge the hiatus in the non-existent chain of causation. Such an amendment is neither invited, nor authorized under the liberality manifested by Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 15, 28 U.S.C.A. Apex Smelting Co. v. Burns, 7 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 978, 981.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?

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: 6