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:
In the Matter of CORNUCOPIA GOLD MINES, INC., Alleged Bankrupt, Appellant.
No. 12832.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued May 5, 1959.
Decided May 21, 1959.
Harold R. Schmidt, Pittsburgh, Pa., (Jack W. Plowman, Pittsburgh, Pa., Rose, Houston, Cooper & Schmidt, on the brief), for appellant.
Edmund K. Trent, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY,’ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this bankruptcy matter it is argued on behalf of appellant that the claims of the petitioning creditors were not “provable”. Our own examination of the record reveals that the validity of these claims was satisfactorily established.
It is also strongly contended that there was no proof of the commission of any act of bankruptcy. The first act alleged was that a considerable part of appellant’s property was concealed or removed or permitted to be concealed or removed with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and that the responsibility therefor was the appellant’s. The second act charged was that appellant, while unable to pay its debts as they matured, permitted the appointment of a receiver for its property. We think the evidence as to both of these called for consideration by the jury.
The above disposes of appellant’s contingent argument for a new trial.
We find no substantial error either in the court’s charge or in its evidence ruling with reference to disbursement items against appellant’s bank account in the First National Bank of Saltsburg, Pennsylvania.
In the circumstances there is no necessity for passing upon appellees’ suggestion that no appeal lies in this case.
Appellant corporation would seem to have been a victim of a tragic intercorporate situation precipitated by those in control. The effort in the district court and on this appeal to avert its consequences has been handled in good faith and most competently. However, the record substantially supports the judgment of the district court which should not be disturbed.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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: 1