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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence A. TRUMBLAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13139.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1961.
Lawrence A. Trumblay, in pro. per., Tor appellant.
Charles R. LeMaster, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kenneth C. Raub, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
DUFFY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant was charged by an information in two counts with the offense of robbing the National Bank and Trust Company of South Bend, Indiana, a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Count I charged violation of section 2113(a), Title 18 U.S.C. Count II charged violation of section 2113(d), Title 18 U.S.C. In February, 1953, after a trial before a jury, defend.ant was convicted upon both counts. The instant appeal represents the fifth time that defendant has been before this Court since his conviction in 1953.
After the trial in 1953, and after a denial of his timely motion for a new trial, defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and urged four alleged errors committed during the course of the trial. The decision of the trial court was affirmed. United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 208 F.2d 147.
In 1955, defendant filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C. Upon the hearing, the trial court vacated the 5-year sentence imposed upon Count I, but left the 25 year sentence under Count II intact. An appeal to this Court resulted in an affirmance. United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 234 F.2d 273, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 931, 77 S.Ct. 233, 1 L.Ed.2d 166.
In 1957, defendant filed a second motion under section 2255. The grounds of this motion included 1) denial of effective representation by counsel at the trial; 2) failure of the defense attorney to call a critical alibi witness, and 3) the knowing use of manufactured evidence by the government. The trial court denied the motion and upon appeal the trial •court was affirmed by this Court. United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 256 F.2d 615.
In 1959, defendant filed a third motion to vacate sentence under section 2255. The ground alleged was that defendant had been denied the effective representation of counsel. Trumblay claimed the attorney who had been chosen by defendant himself, did not adequately speak on his behalf at the time of sentencing in 1953. The trial court denied this motion without a hearing on the ground that the motion, files and records conclusively showed defendant was entitled to no relief. Upon appeal, the action of the trial court was affirmed. Trumblay v. United States, 7 Cir., 278 F.2d 229.
On July 29, 1960, defendant filed in the District Court a motion which culminated in the present appeal. The motion was filed pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., and sought vacation of the 25-year sentence imposed under Count II upon the alleged ground that the Court, in imposing the sentence of five years on Count I, had exhausted its power to sentence further. On the same day the motion was filed, the District Court entered an order denying defendant’s motion to vacate sentence, and referred in its memorandum to the fact that the 5-year sentence under Count I previously vacated in 1956 could not now be treated as valid for the purpose of attacking the 25-year sentence imposed under Count II. From the District Court’s order denying defendant’s motion to vacate sentence, the instant appeal was taken.
On the instant appeal, as defendant was unable to be personally present before this Court at the time set for oral argument, the government agreed the issues herein might be decided on the briefs theretofore filed and without oral argument. This has been done.
Defendant’s principal contention is that when the District Court imposed a 5-year sentence under Count I, it exhausted its power to sentence under Count II and, therefore, the 25-year sentence imposed under Count II is invalid.
Implicit in defendant’s present argument is that the District Court was in error in 1956 when it set aside the 5-year sentence on Count I. Of course, this was done on defendant’s motion hereinbefore described. This Court approved the correction made by the District Court. United States v. Trumblay, 7 Cir., 234 F.2d 273, 275, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 931, 77 S.Ct. 233, 1 L.Ed.2d 166.
Prior to Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, there were differing views as to the doctrine of merger under the federal bank robbery statute. It is now well established that an offense under section 2113 (a), simple bank robbery, for sentencing purposes becomes merged with the more aggravated offense under section 2113 (d), while committing a bank robbery, assaulting any person, or putting in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon. Thus, the maximum sentence which could properly be imposed for a violation of these two sections is twenty-five years.
Defendant seeks a complete vacation of the 25-year sentence. He claims to be proceeding under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the Court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Apparently, the correction asked by defendant is to do away with the sentence completely. The District Court already has corrected the sentence. It did so in 1956. In its discretion, it decided the corrected sentence should be for a term of twenty-five years. The District Court did not exceed its power or authority in making such correction.
We reject the theory urged by defendant that the District Court exhausted its power when it imposed the 5-year sentence on Count I. Defendant’s confidence in Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392, is misplaced. It is true that case, like the instant case, dealt with successive sentences for bank robbery and for assaulting with a deadly weapon in connection with that robbery. It was also assumed that only one valid sentence could be imposed.
The Holiday case arose on a petition for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court advised Holiday his remedy was to apply for a vacation of sentence and a re-sentencing. Holiday made such a motion in the district court. That court vacated the shorter term for bank robbery under-Count I, but left intact the longer consecutive sentence imposed under Count II.. Holiday appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth-Circuit held there was no error. Holiday v. United States, 130 F.2d 988, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 691, 63 S.Ct. 265, 87 L.Ed. 553. The Court stated, 130 F.2d at pages 989-990, “Whether Holiday entered one plea of guilty to the indictment or a separate plea to each count, we regard as immaterial. * * * It is our opinion that the indictment, after plea of guilty and for the purpose of sentence,, charged but one offense, which was the-offense fully described in the second count; that that count and the sentence-imposed under it were valid; and that the court below did not err in sustaining that sentence and vacating the sentence imposed under the first count.”
The order 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: 2