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 "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other, not listed, not able to classify". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. George WOOD and Cora M. Wood, Appellees.
No. 22255.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1965.
Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Norman Wolfe, Thomas Stapleton, Donald W. Williamson, Attys. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry Baum, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C;, E. Ray Acton, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for appellant.
E. M. Friend, Jr., Harold I. Apolinsky, Birmingham, Ala., Sirote, Permutt, Friend & Friedman, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.
Before MARIS, RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.
Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation,
PER CURIAM:
In directing a verdict for the taxpayers, the district court recognized that it was deciding directly contrary to the opinion and decision of the Sixth Circuit in Key Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 280. George Wood owned 50% of the stock of Bama Homes. The district court reasoned that the present controversy is not controlled by Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hansen, 1959, 360 U.S. 446, 79 S.Ct. 1270, 3 L.Ed.2d 1360, because Bama Homes had no contractual guaranty obligation to the financial institution. We do not agree.
As we read the contract (record pp. 122-124), Bama Homes agreed to make a “deposit” of “additional security” with the financial institution in consideration of the granting of a mortgage loan to the purchaser-mortgagor. We agree with the decision of the Sixth Circuit in Key Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.
The judgment of the district court is therefore
Reversed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other, not listed, not able to classify". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
United States - in corporate capacity (i.e., as representative of "the people") - in criminal cases
United States - in corporate capacity - civil cases
special wartime agency
Other unlisted federal agency (includes the President of the US)
Unclear or nature not ascertainable

Answer: 0