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 "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES v. SEALE.
No. 5973.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1930.
Norman A. Dodge, U. S. Atty., and A. M. Mood, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Fort Worth, Tex., and Erie Eades, Regional Atty., U. S. Veterans’ Bureau, of Dallas, Tex. (William Wolff Smith, Gen. Counsel, U. S. Veterans’ Bureau, and Bayloss L. Guffy, Atty., U. S. Veterans’ Bureau, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Y. D. Mathes, of Houston, Tex. (Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellee. '
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is based on assignments of error which complain of rulings on the evidence. No error is assigned on the record proper. Appellee has filed a motion to strike the bill of exceptions on the grounds that it was not presented during the term at which judgment was entered, and that no order was made during that term extending the time for presentation and settlement of a bill of exceptions. The grounds of the motion are supported by the record; but, after the expiration of the term during which the judgment was entered, the district judge signed a nunc pro tunc order purporting to extend the time within which to present a bill of exceptions, and such bill is the one that we are asked to consider.
Appellee’s motion was well taken, as the power of the court in the absence of an extension order ended with the trial term. United States v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; Jennings v. Philadelphia, etc., Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 255, 31 S. Ct. 1, 54 L. Ed. 1031. And such power could not be restored by a nunc pro tune order. Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 12 S. Ct. 450, 36 S. Ct. 162; Exporters v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U. S. 365, 42 S. Ct. 331, 66 L. Ed. 663. Accordingly, appellee’s motion to strike the bill of exceptions is granted; and, there being no question for review presented by the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?

Choices:
cabinet level department
courts or legislative
agency whose first word is "federal"
other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
Distric of Columbia
other, not listed, not able to classify

Answer: 8