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:
BOOMHOWER, Inc., Appellant, v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Dennis J. Kane, Appellees.
No. 13821.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 9, 1957.
Decided Jan. 9, 1958.
Mr. Thaddeus G. Benton, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Russell Hardy, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Dickson R. Loos, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Alexander M. Heron, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee American Automobile Insurance Co.
Mr. Edward A. White, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Kane.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Washington and Danaher, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a sequel to Boomhower, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance Company, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 220 F.2d 488, certiorari denied, 1955, 350 U.S. 833, 76 S.Ct. 67, 100 L.Ed. 743. Appeal is now taken from an order of the District Court in that case denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for a new trial under Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., which alleged newly-discovered evidence. The District Court concluded that while this evidence - — which appellant argues shows perjury - — was of a character tending to impeach the testimony of a witness at the trial, it was not likely to lead to a change in the result reached.
We think the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The evidence can only doubtfully be described as newly-discovered : plaintiff-appellant could have taken the witness’ deposition or otherwise made timely discovery. Certainly the matter offered does not reach the gravity contemplated by the “any other reason justifying relief” provision of Rule 60(b) (6), even assuming that provision to be applicable here. Cf. Klapprott v. United States, 1949, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266; 3 Freeman, Judgments, § 1241 (5th ed. 1925); 7 Moore, Federal Practice, pars. 60.24, 60.-27 (1955).
Affirmed.
. See also Boomhower, Inc., v. Boomhower, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 243 F.2d 254.
. This motion was filed twenty-two months after the District Court’s dismissal of the original complaint, and fifteen months after our affirmance of that dismissal.

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