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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
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 first listed respondent.

Opinion:
NEWSPAPER GUILD OF BOSTON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 5155.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1956.
Sidney S. Grant, Boston, Mass., Grant & Angoff, Boston, Mass., on the brief, for appellant.
Frank W. Crocker, Boston, Mass., James Vorenberg and Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge & Rugg, Boston, Mass., on the brief, for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.
This case was here before. Newspaper Guild of Boston v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 102.
It started as a complaint filed in the district court by the Newspaper Guild under § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, in which a court order was sought to compel Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation to submit a certain dispute as to an alleged “discharge” of a rewrite man to arbitration pursuant to paragraph 4 of art. V of the collective bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal from this judgment of dismissal, we vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, upon the authority of our decision in Local 205, United Electrical, etc., Workers v. General Electric Co., 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 85.
In paragraph 1 of “Article V — Security” the parties each agreed to meet upon the request of the other to discuss matters arising from the application of the collective bargaining agreement “or affecting the relations of the Publisher and the employees covered by this agreement.” Paragraph 2 provided that: “ * * * In case of all discharges, the Guild will be notified in writing at the same time as the employee is notified.” Paragraph 3 provided that if within five days “after notification of any discharge is received,” the Guild requested a meeting with the Publisher “to discuss the discharge, the Publisher or his representative and the Guild will make every effort to determine and understand the facts in each case, to the end that mutual agreement will result.” Paragraph 4 then provided:
“In the event that the Publisher and the Guild are unable to agree upon the discharge, the matter shall upon the request of either party be submitted to arbitration for the purpose of deciding (1) whether or not the Publisher had just cause for the discharge, or (2) if the matter of severance pay is in issue, whether or not the discharge was for gross neglect of duty or gross misconduct while on duty; provided, however, that a discharge due to a reduction in size of staff shall be within the sole discretion of the Publisher and shall not be arbitrable. * * *”
The paragraph went on to authorize the arbitrator, if he should find that the employee was “discharged without just cause,” to order “the reinstatement of such employee with such compensation for the time lost as the arbitrator may determine; or if the matter of severance pay is in issue and the arbitrator shall determine that the employee was discharged for just cause but not for gross neglect of duty or gross misconduct while on duty, the employee shall be awarded severance pay.” A few procedural matters were provided for in the concluding portion of paragraph 4.
In June, 1954, a rewrite man named Broudy who had been working on the regular day shift for many years was transferred by the defendant to the so-called “lobster” shift, which begins at 1:00 a. m. The Union protested this transfer, which it characterized as a “constructive discharge,” on several grounds, but no agreement having been reached with the employer, the Guild then invoked the arbitration provision above quoted. However, the Publisher refused to arbitrate, asserting that Broudy’s employment had not been terminated and hence that there was no arbitrable issue under that paragraph.
On the previous appeal we stated, 233 F.2d at page 103:
“In this case the arbitration clause is a narrow one, but nevertheless there is a question, which is for the district court in the first instance to determine, as to whether the dispute over Broudy’s transfer comes within the scope of the clause. In the General Electric opinion we have suggested general principles, by way of guidance only. It is a matter of interpretation of the particular contract involved.”
Assuming for the moment that an onerous transfer, having the purpose and effect of forcing the transferred employee to quit the employment, may be considered as a “discharge,”- within the meaning of the above provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, it was upon remand found as a fact by the district court, and not denied by appellant, that “Broudy has not left the employ of the paper and still continues to work on the ‘lobster’ shift.” As the district court pointed out, it would be incongruous and inconceivable to provide for the award of “severance pay” to a man still in the employment of the newspaper and drawing his regular salary. The court concluded “that Broudy has not been discharged either factually or constructively.” Accordingly, a judgment was entered dismissing the complaint, from which judgment this appeal has been taken.
Under the circumstances we think the district court was obviously correct in dismissing the complaint. There was no “discharge” within the meaning of the arbitration clause and hence, as a matter of interpretation, there was no arbitrable issue to be submitted to arbitration. This is not a case where a broadly phrased arbitration clause, properly interpreted, “may refer the very question of arbitrability to the arbitrator for decision.” Clearly here the court had to determine, as a preliminary matter, whether there existed an arbitrable issue. See our discussion in the General Electric case, supra, 233 F.2d at page 101.
A judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?

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