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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Monte T. DOCHTERMAN, Appellant.
No. 80-1267.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 25, 1980.
Decided Oct. 1, 1980.
Monte T. Dochterman, for appellant, pro se.
James H. Reynolds, U. S. Atty., N. D. of Iowa, Judith A. Whetstine, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Monte Dochterman pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and was given the maximum sentence of twenty years and committed for study pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(c) (1976). After completion of the study, the court reduced his sentence to eight years. On April 6, 1979, Dochterman filed a section 2255 motion alleging that his attorney and the prosecuting attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1976). The court referred the case to a magistrate, who, after a hearing, recommended that the petition be denied. The district court, adopting the magistrate’s recommendation, dismissed the action. We affirm.
Dochterman’s claim of coercion stems from events following the trial court’s rejection of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and defendant. The Government agreed to move to dismiss count I and recommend a three-year sentence under the Youth Corrections Act in exchange for Dochterman’s agreeing to plead guilty to count II of the indictment. The court, however, refused to accept the plea bargain, stating:
* * * The Court has examined the presentence report on this defendant and is of the view that because of the matters in the report that this defendant is not a fit subject for sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act, and therefore, I reject the plea bargain.
The court called a recess to give Dochterman time to consider withdrawing his guilty plea. At the hearing on his section 2255 motion, Dochterman testified that his attorney and the prosecuting attorney both assured him during the recess that the court would, in the end, impose the bargained-for three-year sentence, and was only trying to “put the fear of God in him.” Dochterman’s brother and mother corroborated this testimony in part. Dochterman also testified that his attorney assured him prior to resentencing that the court would impose the three-year sentence.
Dochterman now alleges that he pleaded guilty in reliance on the representations of his attorney and the attorney for the Government, and that these false representations coerced him into pleading guilty.
The Government and Dochterman’s attorney, Robinson, strongly disputed Dochterman’s testimony. Robinson testified that he advised Dochterman to plead guilty, but at no time did he guarantee that the court would impose only a three-year sentence. He said that he made it clear that the court would not sentence Dochterman according to the plea bargain. Finally, Robinson testified that before Dochterman was resentenced, Robinson expressed the hope that, since Dochterman had behaved well during the ninety-day study period, the court might reduce his sentence to ten years.
The magistrate credited Robinson’s testimony over the testimony of Dochterman, his mother, and his brother. The magistrate rejected Dochterman’s testimony because: 1) Dochterman had earlier filed several petitions for postconviction relief in which he referred to the original plea bargain but failed to claim coercion or reliance on unkept promises; 2) Dochterman indicated, in letters written to Robinson during the ninety-day study period that he knew the court had a wide choice of sentencing options available; and 3) Dochterman’s only corroboration was the testimony of his mother, whose credibility was weakened because of her relationship with Dochterman and her inability to remember details.
The district court’s findings of fact will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Goldman, 593 F.2d 129, 131 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 838, 100 S.Ct. 76, 62 L.Ed.2d 50 (1979). The court is especially reluctant to set aside findings where-as in this case-those findings rest primarily on the judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. As we stated in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Goldman, supra, 593 F.2d at 131-32,
[w]e note that “it is not the function of an appellate court to try the case de novo, or to pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony * * *." Shull v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152, 155 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086, 98 S.Ct. 1281, 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). This is especially true where the case is primarily based upon oral testimony and where the trial judge has had an opportunity to view the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses. E.g., Snodgrass v. Nelson, 503 F.2d 94, 96 (8th Cir. 1974).
Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are unsupported by substantial evidence, or if the reviewing court is left with the conviction that a mistake has been made. Automated Controls, Inc. v. MIC Enterprises, 599 F.2d 288, 289 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Goldman, supra, 593 F.2d at 131. In light of the testimony of Robinson and the government attorney, and supporting exhibits, we cannot say that the district court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous.
Judgment affirmed.
. This recommendation was based on the strength of the Government’s case against him and on the fact that Dochterman faced numerous state charges, all of which would be dropped if Dochterman pleaded guilty.
. The magistrate discounted Dochterman’s brother’s testimony because he did not directly hear the discussion between Dochterman and Robinson.

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