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:
REED v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8128.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Submitted May 11, 1042.
Decided June 1, 1942.
Otho D. Branson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Edward M. Curran, U. S. Atty., and John C. Conliff, Jr., and Charles B. Murray, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and ED-GERTON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of stealing from the person of one David E. Williams a small sum of money. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a period of from two to six years.
At the trial defendant produced no witnesses and reserved no exceptions. His trial counsel has filed an affidavit in which he informs us that the case was submitted to the jury on the single question whether the defendant did “snatch from the hand of the complaining witness, American currency in the amount of two dollars”; that as attorney for the defendant he attempted to secure interviews with such witnesses as were available and was unable to find any who would testify in defendant’s behalf. After the appeal, it being represented to us that appellant’s former counsel had withdrawn, we requested the trial court to appoint a member of the bar of this court to represent him on appeal. At the call of the case we were informed by present counsel that from the interviews and inspection of the record the only possible error of which appellant could complain was the failure of trial counsel to subpoena witnesses who appellant contends would have testified on his behalf. Counsel, therefore, took the names of witnesses furnished by appellant and had subpoenas issued for their appearance before the District Attorney on a given date, but on that date only two of eight were found and served, and both asserted they had no knowledge of the offense or the circumstances under which it occurred. Counsel informs us he knows of no ground on which the appeal can be sustained.
In this state of the record, and in view also of the fact that the evidence for the government was not stenographically reported and is not contained in the record, we have no alternative but to affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.

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