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:
UNGER et al. v. NOXON CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CO., Inc.
No. 5785.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 7, 1936.
George S. Silzer, of Newark, N. J., and Isidor Unger, of New York City, for appellants.
George H. Rosenstein, of Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Writ of certiorari denied 66 S. Ct. 917, 80 L. Ed. —.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting in bankruptcy, denying a petition for allowance of counsel fees. The appellants are both attorneys who had claims against Noxon Chemical Products Company, Inc., which were paid in full. The appellant Unger appeared in the bankruptcy proceedings against that company in a three-fold capacity; first, as petitioning creditor, second, as attorney for himself as petitioning creditor, and, third, as attorney for the appellant Kahn, an intervening creditor. The appellants contend that a creditor who prosecutes involuntary bankruptcy proceedings is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee and requested $5,000 as counsel fee for Unger. The District Court refused to make an allowance.
We are of the opinion that when Unger appeared for himself as a petitioning creditor he was not in fact or in law acting in the capacity of an attorney, inasmuch as that term means one authorized to act for another. As a petitioning creditor, he appeared in the capacity of a claimant. There was therefore no abuse of discretion in the denial of a fee to Unger as attorney for himself as a claimant. He was, however, entitled to a fee as attorney for the appellant Kahn under section 64b (3) of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 104(b)(3) which provides for the payment of one reasonable attorney’s fee for professional services actually rendered to the petitioning creditors in involuntary cases. The measure of the allowance is a matter within the discretion of the judge of the bankruptcy court, provided that the allowance is reasonable. The order of the court is reversed with direction to award a reasonable fee to Unger limited to compensation for his services as attorney for Kahn, the intervening creditor.
Order reversed.

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