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 "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)". Your task is to determine which category of substate government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Lamar HUNT, Plaintiff, v. DAWSON COUNTY, MONTANA, Defendant-Appellant, and Robin F. Scully, Defendant-Appellee.
C.A. No. 78-2298.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 1980.
Decided July 21, 1980.
Dale Cox, Glendive, Mont., Gene Jarussi, Billings, Mont., for defendant-appellant.
James L. Sandall, Sandall & Cavan, Billings, Mont., on brief; Bob Smith, Billings, Mont., for defendant-appellee.
Before SKOPIL and FARRIS, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
The Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Dawson County, Montana contracted to sell a parcel of land to J. D. Christianson. The contract did not reserve to the County any royalty interest in mineral rights. Upon performance of the contract, however, Dawson County conveyed the land to Christianson by a quit claim deed which reserved a QlA percent royalty interest in all oil, gas and minerals. In 1951, Christianson brought a quiet title action and acquired a confirmation deed which made no reservation of a royalty interest to the County.
Plaintiff Lamar Hunt, lessee of the oil and gas rights to the property in question, brought this interpleader action to determine the validity of the County’s royalty interest, naming as defendants Dawson County and the mineral owners who acquired title through Christianson. The United States District Court for the District of Montana found for Christianson’s successors in interest on the ground that the County was bound by the result in Chris-tianson’s 1951 confirmation deed action. Dawson County appeals, contending that it was not a party to the confirmation deed action and that its royalty interest in mineral rights was therefore not determined in that proceeding. We agree.
Under the Montana confirmation deed statute in effect in 1951, Christianson was required to name “all persons having any interest in said land, whose interest shall appear of record in the office of the county clerk . . . together with the county treasurer . . . .” Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 84-4145 (enacted by 1945 Mont. Laws, Ch. 43, § 2; repealed by 1977 Mont. Laws, Ch. 126, § 15). The provision for naming the county treasurer was intended to give the court jurisdiction to order the treasurer to execute a confirmation deed, not to give him or her authority to represent the County’s property interest. The treasurer must be named even if the County has no ownership interest in the contested land.
Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 16-803, which was in effect in 1951, provides that a county “must be . designated [by its corporate name] in all actions and proceedings touching its corporate . . . property . .” Christianson was required to name the County by its corporate name to make it a party to the confirmation deed action. Since he failed to do so, the court had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of Dawson County’s royalty interest. To the extent the quiet title judgment and confirmation deed purported to determine the County’s interest, they may be collaterally attacked. Bentley v. Rosebud County, Montana, 230 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 984, 76 S.Ct. 1051, 100 L.Ed. 1498 (1956).
Reversed and remanded.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)". Which category of substate government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 6