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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Your task is to determine which category of state government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Francis M. MULLEN, et al., Defendants/Appellants.
No. 85-1883.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 16, 1986.
Decided Aug. 1, 1986.
R. Elaine Leitner, Keker & Brockett, San Francisco, Cal., Marshall Warren Krause, Larkspur, Cal., for plaintiffs/appellees.
Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants/appellants.
Before BROWNING, FLETCHER and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the preliminary injunction in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in California v. Ciraolo, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), and Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986). In addition, the district court may choose to review the specific terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 in light of those same two cases.
The district court has thirty days to make any modifications to the preliminary injunction it deems necessary. Until it does, however, the entire preliminary injunction shall remain in effect. In all other respects, we sustain the preliminary injunction under the standard of our circuit that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the seriousness of the questions involved and the balance of hardships required it. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir.1984). We retain jurisdiction to review any appeals from the modification of the preliminary injunction.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Which category of state government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 6