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 classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
Joseph C. DUNFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6826.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct 11, 1954.
Decided Oct. 14, 1954.
Martin Abraham and A. A. Bangel, Portsmouth, Va., for appellant.
William F. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va. (L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and BOREMAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence under an indictment charging violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C. § 2554. Appellant is! a physician. He was convicted on thé testimony of three government agents who, pretending to be narcotic addicts,, obtained from him prescriptions enabling them to purchase narcotic drugs. They testified that these prescriptions were issued without examination upon their paying $3 each for the prescriptions. The indictment contained thirty-four counts each of which charged an offense with respect to a prescription given to one of the government agents. The jury at first returned a verdict of guilty on ten of the counts and reported that it was unable to agree on the other counts. On further consideration of these under direction of the judge, they found appellant guilty on twelve additional counts and the remaining counts were nol prossed. Appellant was fined $100 and given a sentence of five years imprisonment on each of the counts on which he was convicted, the sentences to run concurrently.
At the bar of the court, question was raised as to the constitutionality of the Act; but this question is too well settled to admit of argument. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 36. S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061; Id., 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214; United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 39 S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493; Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497; United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604; United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619; Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819. The only real question in the case was whether the appellant, in giving prescriptions to the government agents, was acting in good faith in the proper practice of his profession or was intending to aid drug addicts to obtain narcotic drugs unlawfully. This question was fairly submitted to the jury in the court’s charge; and the jury’s verdict was amply sustained by the evidence. Question has been raised with respect to the joinder of offenses in the indictment; but there can be no question but that the joinder was proper. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 8(a), 18 U.S.C.A.; Simpkins v. United States, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 594; Smith v. United States, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 180 F.2d 775.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 0