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 IRVING GAINES, INC., Alleged Bankrupt.
No. 254, Docket 31682.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 1968.
Decided Jan. 25, 1968.
Daniel H. Greenberg, New York City, filed a brief, for appellant.
Joel A. Reiss, New York City (Kro-nish, Dresner & Henle, New York City), for appellees.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After making various assessments for back taxes, the United States obtained on August 20, 1965 a lien on property of Irving Gaines, Inc. (Gaines). A number of Gaines’ creditors then filed an involuntary petition in bankruptcy on August 27, 1965. The record submitted to us is sketchy, but we glean from it that the property was sold by the United States on September 8, 1965 to satisfy the lien. Shortly thereafter, an amended petition in bankruptcy was filed, alleging that Gaines, while insolvent, had permitted the government to obtain this lien through “distraint” and had not vacated or discharged it within 30 days from the date it was obtained or at least 5 days before the date set for the sale. The Referee adjudged Gaines a bankrupt, and the district court, Metzner, J., affirmed.
Gaines maintains that it did not commit an act of bankruptcy because it did not suffer or permit “while insolvent, any creditor to obtain a lien upon * * * [its] property through legal proceedings or distraint * * 11 U.S.C. § 21(a) (3) (emphasis added). Gaines argues that the government’s tax liens arose by statute on the various dates when taxes were assesed, and not by “distraint” under 26 U.S.C. § 6331 on August 20, 1965. But the fallacy in this argument is that the government did not merely obtain a tax assessment lien or a so-called “floating” lien. Here, the government actually seized specific property —and sold it too — in order to enforce the lien. This surely is a distraint within the meaning of the Act. In re Timberline Lodge, 139 F.Supp. 13 (D.Or.1955); 1 Collier on Bankruptcy [¶] 3.308 [6] (14th ed. 1967).
Affirmed.
. Our disposition makes it unnecessary for us to consider whether a $10.00 O.O.D. payment by Gaines constituted a preference.

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: 9