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 classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
KAUFMANN AND BAER COMPANY, Appelpellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Twenty-Third District of Pennsylvania, Appellee. SAME v. C. G. LEWELLYN, Formerly Collector of Internal Revenue for the Twenty-Third District of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
Nos. 4417, 4418.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1931.
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1932.
Louis Caplan, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and W. W. Booth and W. A. Seifert, both of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Smith, Shaw, MeClay & Seifert, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.
E. J. Dowd, Sp. Atty., Burean of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., John A. Mc-Cann, Sp. Asst, to U. S. Atty., and Louis Edward Graham, U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and T. H. Lewis, Jr., Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAYIS, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
These eases rest on their own peculiar and unusual facts. These have been fully discussed, as well as the law on the subject, in the comprehensive opinion of the court below, 34 F.(2d) 698. Finding ourselves in accord therewith, its judgment is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3