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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES v. COLLURA.
No. 135.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 21, 1943.
Milo O. Bennett, of New York City, for appellant.
James B. M. McNally, U. S. Atty., of New York City (K. Bertram Friedman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted upon an indictment charging wilful failure to perform a duty required of him under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 311, to-wit, failure to report for induction into the United States Army. In response to an order of his local draft board to report for induction, the appellant appeared at the induction station at the appointed hour but stated that he refused to be inducted unless given a guarantee against compulsory vaccination after he was in the army. He took the stand, and from his testimony it appears that he has long entertained a sincere conviction in opposition to compulsory vaccination. The district judge refused to consider the validity of the Army Regulations regarding vaccination and rightly restricted the issue to whether or not the appellant reported at the induction center prepared to be inducted into the army without qualification. Obviously the duty to report for induction means more than putting in an appearance at the induction station. The selectee must not only appear but must be ready to go through the process which constitutes induction into the army. Admittedly the appellant did not report for induction, but reported for the purpose of making a bargain with the military authorities and entering the army only if the terms agreed upon were satisfactory to his personal views as to vaccination. The trial was conducted with complete fairness and the appeal is without merit. Criticism of the indictment as insufficient to inform the appellant of the charge he had to meet is wholly groundless. Zuziak v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 140, 141.
Judgment affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?

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: 8