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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Harold G. HOOVER, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, et al., Appellee.
No. 7681.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
June 29, 1964.
Robert B. Milsten, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. After conviction upon two counts of Dyer Act violation petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of five and three years. With 1056 days yet unserved upon an aggregate eight-year senténce, petitioner was released upon mandatory release. After a brief period of liberty, petitioner violated the terms of his release and was returned to restraint and transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. His good-time allowance was revoked in its entirety.
Although conceding that allowance for good time should be computed upon the aggregate of consecutive sentences, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161, petitioner asserts that the burden of forfeited good time, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4165, cannot be similarly imposed and that where, as here, one of several consecutive sentences has been completely served in time before forfeiture the sentence can no longer be considered in the aggregate for such' purpose. We find no merit to the contention and hold that the consecutive sentences should be aggregated both for computation of good time and for its forfeiture. Grant v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 673; Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879; United States ex rel. Klein v. Kenton, 2 Cir., 327 F.2d 229.
The appeal being otherwise without merit, the judgment is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
Office of the Federal Inspector
Office of Management & Budget
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Workers Compensation Program
Parole board or parole commisssion, or prison official, or US Bureau of Prisons
Patent Office
Postal Rate Commission (U.S.)
Postal Service (U.S.)
RR Adjustment Board
RR Retirement Board

Answer: 6