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 "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Daniel Edward HENRY, etc., et al., Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, et al., Intervenors, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Honorable John E. WARNER, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 73-1694.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 27, 1974.
Joel Levine, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), John E. Nordin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Nathan R. Zahm (argued), Sherman Oaks, Cal., A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Laurence R. Sperber, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Under the compulsion of this court’s opinion in Daigle v. Warner (9th Cir. 1973), 490 F.2d 358, the orders and judgment are ordered vacated and the cause is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in the light of Daigle.
Judges Ely and Hufstedler disagree with the holding of Daigle in that both believe that, absent emergency circumstances, the due process clause requires the appointment of counsel or a counsel substitute in all summary courts martial, without the limitations placed upon that right by the majority of the Daigle panel. Judge Ely adds his thought that if, under Supreme Court authority, a civilian is entitled to the assistance of an attorney in a hearing wherein the risk is no more than minimal confinement, then one in the military service of his country, facing much graver consequences, should be entitled to the same consideration. Judge Trask adheres to his views expressed, concurring and dissenting, in Daigle. All members of this panel, however, follow Daigle because it is the law of this circuit.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?

Choices:
cabinet level department
courts or legislative
agency whose first word is "federal"
other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
Distric of Columbia
other, not listed, not able to classify

Answer: 0