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:
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lawrence Milton BALDWIN, Paul W. Harris, Administrator of the Estate of Virginia M. Harris, Anna Lovelace Holland, Administratrix of the Estate of Virgil Holland, and Louise Irwin Sparks, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl Sparks, and Earl Holland, a Minor, Appellees.
No. 10199.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 11, 1966.
Decided March 7, 1966.
Clarence N. Gilbert, Asheville, N. C., for appellant.
Harry L. Cline, Gaffney, S. C., for ap-pellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judge, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding instituted by Maryland Casualty Company under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 to determine coverage under a garage liability policy issued by Maryland Casualty to Lawrence Milton Baldwin on April 1, 1963. A car admittedly at one time owned by Mr. Baldwin was involved in a serious accident October 27, 1963. There are no issues of law involved in this case, only factual questions as to the ownership and possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The district judge found that Baldwin was the owner of the automobile, that possession had not been transferred under an agreement of sale and that the use at the time of the accident was with the permission of Baldwin. The testimony as to underlying facts and circumstances of the ownership and possession of this automobile was confused and contradictory. Credibility is for the trial court, which sat without a jury. The burden was upon the plaintiff. We cannot say that the determination of the district judge is clearly erroneous.
The decision of the district court is affirmed.
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: 2