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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
MALAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 362, Docket 27722.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 28, 1963.
Decided May 28, 1963.
Alvin L. Korngold, Mineóla, N. Y., for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York (John Paul Reiner, Eugene R. Anderson, Robert E. Kushner, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel), for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to the Wunderlich Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 321, 322, plaintiff brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for additional compensation under a contract it had with the Veterans Administration, claiming it was ordered to perform work it was not contractually required to perform. Pursuant to the standard government contract “disputes clause” plaintiff’s claim was submitted to the Contracting Officer, whose decision was adverse to plaintiff. Appeal was taken to the Construction Contract Appeals Board which also denied the claim.
Plaintiff complains, though agreeing with the Government that there are no genuine issues of fact in dispute, that the Veterans Administration’s procedures adopted in its case denied it procedural due process and denied it its constitutional rights, violated the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seep; and the final decision adverse to it was not supported by substantial evidence.
We hold, as Judge Cashin held, that there is no merit to appellant’s claims, and we affirm the district court judgment on the opinion below.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 2