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:
Albert ADELMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 14360.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 1, 1954.
Samuel T. Bull, Reno, Nev., for appellant.
Madison B. Graves, U. S. Atty., Franklin P. R. Rittenhouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
DENMAN, Chief Judge.
Adelman appeals from a judgment in a jury tried case sentencing him to ten years in the penitentiary on an indictment charging that he did, after importation, knowingly and unlawfully receive, conceal and facilitate the transportation of a certain narcotic drug, to-wit, approximately one grain of heroin, which said heroin, as the defendant then and there well knew, had been imported into the United States of America contrary to law, in violation of Section 174, Title 21 United States Code Annotated.
The concluding sentence of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 reads:
“Whenever on trial for a violation of this subdivision the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”
The accused took the stand but made no effort to sustain his burden of proof that the heroin was not imported or that he otherwise was entitled to possess it under other provisions of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act.
The sole contention of Adelman is that the District Court erred in denying his motion for an acquittal on the ground that the United States failed to produce evidence to constitute a prima facie case against him of the possession of the heroin. The evidence is as follows:
Adelman and one Allen drove from San Francisco to Reno to gamble. They took a room at the Pony Express Motel in Sparks, just outside of Reno. After a night of gambling they drove to their motel followed by four police officers who were travelling in two automobiles.
When Adelman and Allen got out of their car and had walked a short distance toward their room they were stopped by the police officers. One of them then “frisked” Adelman for the possession of concealed weapons. The four officers, Allen and appellant then proceeded to Adelman’s motel room. In the course of this procession two of the officers, Eberling and Backer, saw appellant flip a tiny package from his hand to his left onto a driveway. The other two officers did not see Adelman flip anything to the ground. About an hour and a half was consumed searching the motel room.
No one investigated this small package which looked like a piece of paper until approximately one hour and a half after the two officers testified seeing it thrown to the driveway. On leaving the motel they again passed the package and Adelman tried to conceal it by dropping a newspaper on it. Eberling then picked up the package and took it to the police station where it was opened. It contained heroin.
Appellant points out that two of the officers testified they did not see the package thrown but this is explained on the ground that they were not in position to see it. Adelman denied throwing the package; his credibility was impeached on cross examination when he admitted a prior felony conviction. Appellant also argues there is no proof the object which was flipped to the ground was the same object later picked up. But there is evidence in the testimony of his attempt to conceal it by dropping the newspaper.
“The verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680. Accord: Woodward Laboratories v. United States, 9 Cir., 198 F.2d 995; United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834. We think the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment 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: 2