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 "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
In re GOLDMAN.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 6, 1930.
No. 128.
Herman G. Robbins, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Edward G. Elkins, of Brooklyn, N. Y., on tbe brief), for appellant.
Charles Burston, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellee.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N, HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges,
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The special master found that the bankrupt in an attempt to conceal the fact, knowingly testified falsely in his bankruptcy proceedings concerning property in which his father, who had died intestate about two years previously, had owned an interest at the time of his death. As one of three children who, with his mother, were the sole heirs, the bankrupt was entitled to share in any such property. The record amply supports the findings of the special master as to the falsity of the testimony, and with the fact of the bankrupt’s attempted concealment the District Court did not disagree. It considered, 'however, that the false testimony was on an immaterial issue.
The substantial benefits that accrue to a bankrupt from his discharge are his of right only after he has complied with all the essential requirements of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA).. His right to a discharge does not flow from the fact of adjudication alone, but from that coupled with such compliance. It is incumbent upon him to make a full and fair disclosure of all his property, rights, and credits, and to surrender all that is not exempt under the law. His creditors are entitled to everything legally available to them, ¡and it is not for the bankrupt by concealment to make it impossible for such legal avails^ bility to be determined by the court. In re Breitling (C. C. A.) 133 F. 146; In re Conroy (D. C.) 134 F. 764.
As an heir of his father, this bankrupt was bound to disclose honestly and fully his knowledge of the extent of his father’s estate, including what he had received, if anything, or might be entitled to receive, as his share therein. The subject-matter of the inquiry was material to the issue involving the amount of the bankrupt’s estate, and the materiality of the false testimony was not dependent upon the extent, or even the fact, of its being harmful to»the creditors. In re Slocum, Jr. (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 282.
Judgment reversed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
Indian Tribes
Foreign Government
Multi-state agencies, boards, etc. (e.g., Port Authority of NY)
International Organizations
Other
Not ascertained

Answer: 5