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 determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alva H. BYRD, as Executor under the Last Will and Testament of Huger S. Byrd, Deceased, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
November 25, 1925.)
No. 2389.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern -District of South Carolina, at Plorence; Ernest P. Cochran, Judge.
P. L. Willcox, of Plorence, S. C. (A. L. Hardee, of Florence, S. C., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
James R. Coggeshall, of Darlington, S. C., and M. L. Smith, of Camden, S. C., for defendant in error.
Before WADDILL, ROSE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ROSE, Circuit Judge.
A statement of the facts of this case and a discussion of the applicable law will be found in our former opinion, in which we reversed a judgment for the defendant below. Byrd v. Atlantic Coast Line, 2 F.(2d) 672. We then held that the learned judge below should not have instruet'ed a verdict in favor of the defendant. We thought that whether the plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of the gross or willful negligence-necessary, under the somewhat peculiar statute of South Carolina, to defeat recovery,, depended upon whether he knew the defendant maintained and operated a second main-track over the crossing at which he was killed, and we found upon the evidence presented that whether he did or did not raised a jury-question.
At the retrial, that issue was left to the 12 men, and their verdict was against the defendant. The latter now contends that the new evidence presented showed that the deceased must have been so familiar with the crossing that no reasonable man could doubt he knew of the existence of the seeond main track. We do not think this contention can be sustained. • Upon the testimony in this record, men might fairly differ as to whether he did or did not.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 4