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 classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
Ralph H. SEIPEL, d/b/a Investors Surety Company, Appellant, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee.
No. 12557.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 24, 1955.
Decided Nov. 3, 1955.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1956.
Mr. Charles F. O’Neall, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Francis C. Brooke, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant.
Mr. William H. Timbers, Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, with whom Mr. David Ferber, Sp. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, was on the brief for appellee.
Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Alleging that Ralph H. Seipel, a registered investment adviser, had violated § 206(1, 2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C.A. § 80b-6(l) and (2), and was about to continue to do so, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the continuance of the acts and practices said to constitute such violations. The District Court entered a permanent injunction from which Seipel appeals.
The record fully justified the action of the District Court.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 0