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 second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Kenneth A. RUBY and Lawrence Cowan, Appellants, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY.
No. 15236.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 24, 1965.
Decided Oct. 18, 1965.
Bert E. Zibelman, Freedman, Borow-sky & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa. (Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa.; Freedman, Borowsky & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
Lynn L. Detweiler, Swartz, Campbell, & Detweiler, Philadelphia, Pa., for ap-pellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The present plaintiffs had recovered default judgments against one Joseph Wolfe in an automobile collision negligence suit. Wolfe had been insured for liability but his insurance company, the defendant-appellee in this action, withdrew coverage because of Wolfe’s prejudicial lack of cooperation in the tort action. Those claims against Wolfe’s insurance company completely depended upon the validity of Wolfe’s coverage. The questions involved were properly submitted to the jury. We find no prejudicial trial error.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
Indian Tribes
Foreign Government
Multi-state agencies, boards, etc. (e.g., Port Authority of NY)
International Organizations
Other
Not ascertained

Answer: 5