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:
DAYTON NEWSPAPERS, INC., d/b/a The Dayton Daily News, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert W. STARICK et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16032.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
May 20, 1965.
John 0. Henry, Dayton, Ohio, for appellant, Chester E. Finn, Dayton, Ohio, on "the brief, Estabrook, Finn & McKee, Dayton, Ohio, of counsel.
W. Erwin Kilpatrick, Joseph P. Duffy, Asst. City Attys., Dayton, Ohio, for appellees, Herbert S. Beane, City Atty., Dayton, Ohio, on the brief.
Before MILLER, O’SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, publisher of The Dayton Daily News, appeals from dismissal on motion of its complaint charging deprivation of its civil rights by defendants, police and other municipal officers of the City of Dayton, Ohio. The complaint charged that one of appellant’s news reporters was sent to the scene of a major fire in downtown Dayton, and that the police there on duty discriminatorily denied such reporter access to the public streets in the vicinity of the fire; that acting under color of specified ordinances of the City of Dayton and an Ohio statute, police officers of Dayton “illegally, unlawfully and in violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff guaranteed to it by Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America, denied Reporter Kennedy access to the streets of the City of Dayton, Ohio, in the vicinity of the fire for the purpose of covering and reporting the fire.” The complaint further charged that the said police officers denied plaintiff its constitutional rights under the First Amendment “by unlawfully, illegally and under color of law, forcefully removing Reporter Kennedy from the scene of the fire, * * * thereby denying Plaintiff’s reporter the opportunity to cover and report the fire.” The complaint also appears to allege that a conspiracy existed between named police officers, the Dayton City Manager, its Safety Director, its Law Director and its Chief of Police whereby they were threatening prosecution of said reporter Kennedy under the specified ordinances and statute for using the public streets of Dayton, Ohio; and that the charged denial of use of the public streets of Dayton to the said reporter Kennedy and his removal from the scene of said fire were discriminatory in that a reporter and photographer of a competing news medium of said city were allowed to use the same streets and public ways that were denied to the plaintiff’s reporter.
The District Judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, stating that “Plaintiff has no standing to maintain this suit since it is not the real party in interest,” and that “Plaintiff has no standing to sue for deprivation of the civil rights of another person,” and likewise that “the facts as alleged in the complaint show no actual controversy between plaintiff and defendants as required by Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201.”
While the complaint was indeed lacking in nicety and specificity of factual allegation, we read it as charging that defendants denied the plaintiff newspaper the right to have its agent-reporter enter upon the public streets in the vicinity of the fire for the legitimate purpose of gathering news for publication and that without excuse or need therefor, and while allowing other reporters the privilege of using such public ways, defendants diseriminatorily removed plaintiff’s reporter therefrom.
We do not construe the complaint as merely a suit to redress the civil rights of plaintiff’s reporter, but rather as an effort to vindicate its right as a newspaper to gather news for publication without discrimination or uncalled for interference. In their address to this Court, defendants assert the authority of police officers to restrict the use of the streets for reasons of public safety during a fire and intimate that plaintiff’s reporter refused to comply with police orders. Certainly police officers have such authority and newspaper reporters would be subject to it. That the plaintiff’s reporter deserved the treatment he got may be established upon trial. This probability could not be assumed, however, in considering defendants’ motion to dismiss which admitted the well pleaded allegations of the complaint. We are of the opinion that the motion to dismiss should have been denied and the cause put at issue for trial.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed.

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: 3