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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

Opinion:
Arthur Paul WATKINS and Genesee Lime Products Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Phillip RUPERT, Chairman, Local Draft Board No. 76, Selective Service System, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 347, Docket 23687.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit,
Argued June 6, 1955.
Decided June 22, 1955.
Dennis. J. Livadas, Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Donald F. Potter, Asst. U. S. Atty. for Western Dist. of New York, Buffalo, N. Y. (John O. Henderson, U. S. Atty., Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, CHASE, Circuit Judge, and RYAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The district court was clearly correct in refusing to give plaintiffs the relief they seek at this time. Judicial intervention in the selective service selection system — in any ease drastically limited, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 460(b)— must await the exhaustion by the registrant of all administrative remedies. The exact point at which such remedies have been fully utilized may not always be easy to ascertain, but no judicial review has ever been held appropriate- before the registrant has responded, either affirmatively or negatively, to the order of induction. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305; Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567; Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392. Certainly no adequate showing of danger of irreparable harm, prerequisite to any kind of injunctive relief, can be made so long as the registrant has not decided whether or not to-obey the induction order and before the government has decided whether or not to prosecute if he decides not to report. And if plaintiff 'Wátkins is unwilling to' run the gamut of criminal prosecution, he can test the legality of his induction after he has submitted to it by suing out a writ of habeas corpus..
The- judgment is affirmed; and the plaintiffs’ motion for intermediate relief, including additional time to perfect their appeal and stay of ’induction, is denied.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 0