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 v. TRUJILLO.
No. 10393.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 2, 1951.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1951.
George F. Callaghan, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Otto Kerner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Warren P. Hill, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill. for appellee.
Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and FINNEGAN, Circuit Judges.
FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
Raymond Trujillo, appellant, "seeks to reverse a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois finding him guilty on an indictment charging him with the unlawful acquisition of marihuana, in violation of Sec. 2593 title 26 U.S.C.A. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the appellant was sentenced, on a general finding of guilty, to imprisonment for a year and a day. The appellant, before trial, challenged the sufficiency of an affidavit upon which a search warrant issued in the matter was predicated, and moved to quash the warrant and to suppress the evidence obtained in the execution thereof. The motion was overruled, the evidence admitted, and the appellant, who offered no evidence on his own behalf, was found guilty.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the facts set forth in the affidavit for the search warrant were sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant. If they were, the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed; if not, the judgment should be reversed.
The affidavit, executed by a narcotic agent of the government, is dated April 10, 1950. It states that affiant has reason to believe that on the premises known as 1649 West Warren Blvd:, apartment 103 basement, Chicago, Illinois, in the Northern District of Illinois, there is now being concealed certain marihuana, for use and sale, by Ray Trujillo. The affidavit continues:
“And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing are as follows:
“That on April 6, 1950, this affiant entered the above described premises occupied by Ray Trujillo, and had a conversation with him regarding the possible purchase of marihuana; that Ray Trujillo said he didn’t have any marihuana at the time, but that he had been dealing in it and that his source of supply was one Bernardo Morales who had been arrested by federal agents at Springfield, Illinois, recently; Ray Trujillo further said he couldn’t sell to this affiant because he wasn’t personally introduced to him.”
Appellant urges that the affidavit is fatally defective because “it does not even contain an assertion that (the marihuana) * * * was not tax paid, or that the defendant had acquired the marihuana as a transferee without having paid the tax on the transfer.” This contention cannot be sustained. The Marihuana Act of 1937 provides that possession of the drug is presumptive evidence of a,statutory violation, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 2593 and 2597.
In our opinion the affidavit on which the search warrant was based set forth facts which justified the conclusion that the laws relating to the possession of marihuana were being violated on the premises which it was sought to search.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879. Rule 41(c), Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.
The judgment of the District Court is 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: 6