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". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Arthur LEVINE, Appellant, v. Emily Kathryn LACY, Appellee.
No. 9792.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1965.
Decided April 15, 1965.
John A. Beck, Washington, D. C. (A. Andrew Giangreco, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant.
J. Frederick Larrick, Winchester, Va. (Marshall A. Martin, Jr., Herndon, Va., and Wilbur C. Hall, Leesburg, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge, and STANLEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to permanently enjoin the enforcement of a state court judgment. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The District Court dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, on the ground that the amount in controversy did not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $10,-000.00.
Thereafter, appellant filed an amended complaint asserting the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as an additional ground for jurisdiction for the reason that the entry of the state court judgment “deprived him of the rights of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws secured to him by the Constitution of the United States.” Upon motion of the appellee, the amended complaint was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had “not asserted the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the federal Constitution entitling him to a retrial * * * of the issues determined by the State courts, or any equitable grounds justifying the entry of an order permanently enjoining the collection of the default judgment obtained against him in the Circuit Court of Lou-doun County, Virginia.” We affirm the order of the District Court.
Prior to the institution of the action in the District Court, appellant had sought, without success, to have the judgment set aside in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, Levine v. Lacy, 204 Va. 297, 130 S.E.2d 443 (1963), and the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, Levine v. Lacy, 375 U.S. 932, 84 S.Ct. 330, 11 L.Ed.2d 264 (1963), and a petition for rehearing, 375 U.S. 982, 84 S.Ct. 333, 11 L.Ed.2d 264 (1964).
The historical background of this litigation, and a comprehensive discussion of the state procedural rules and regulations involved, will be found in Levine v. Lacy, 204 Va. 297, 130 S.E.2d 443 (1963). A reading of this decision will reveal that the questions presented to the state court involved only matters dealing with state law and procedure. The same questions were presented to the District Court, where federal jurisdiction was properly declined.
The order of the District Court dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 1