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 "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
William R. ROWE, owner of the fishing vessel SEA QUEEN, Libelant-Appellee, v. Fishing Vessel BIG JIM II, her engines, etc., in rem, and Albert Dulinski, owner, operator and/or charterer of the Fishing Vessel Big Jim II, Respondents-Appellant.
No. 14448.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 7, 1963.
Decided Nov. 27, 1963.
Edward I. Baker, Atlantic City, N. J., for appellant.
Roy L. Sykes, Norfolk, Va. (Jett, Sykes & Berkley, Norfolk, Va., "Walter C. Wright, Jr., Cape May, N. J., on the brief), for libelant-appellee.
Before STALEY, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a final decree in favor of the libelant in a suit in admiralty brought to recover for damages to. a vessel. The trial court found; first, that the respondent Albert Dulinski was negligent in the operation of his vessel “BIG JIM II”; second, that this negligence was solely the proximate cause of extensive damage to the vessel “SEA QUEEN”, owned by the libelant; and third, that the libelant had suffered damages and losses in the total amount of $37,925.45.
The respondent here challenges these factual findings as unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. We do not agree. We have examined the record in its entirety and, applying the rule announced by the Supreme Court in McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954), we find no error. The factual findings are amply supported by evidence which the trial court apparently found credible.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
Indian Tribes
Foreign Government
Multi-state agencies, boards, etc. (e.g., Port Authority of NY)
International Organizations
Other
Not ascertained

Answer: 4