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:
LIKLY & ROCKETT TRUNK CO. v. PROVIDENT MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
No. 6823.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 16, 1936.
Treadway & Marlatt, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this cause there was no reversible error in directing a verdict for defendant, because it uncoutrovertably appears that the policy sued’ upon lapsed on December 6, 1932; that it could be reinstated only upon proof of insurability, that is, upon proof of good health of the insured; that Davis, the general agent of appellee, was not only unauthorized to waive this express requirement, but, assuming that he was, the acceptance and deposit of the check for $61.65 issued on December 23d, and the receipt issued therefor, did not as a matter of law constitute such waiver, but was a clear mistake made in ignorance of appellee’s rights under the policy.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged' that the judgment appealed from be, and the same is, 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: 3