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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Danny Richard MASSINGALE et al., Appellants.
No. 74-1125.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 5, 1974.
Decided Aug. 1, 1974.
T. K. Alexander, Columbia, S. C., for appellants Massingale; James W. Coth-ran, Bishopville, S. C., for appellant Wilie; (James C. Anders, Columbia, S. C., on brief, for appellants).
Oscar W. Bannister, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (John K. Grisso, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
These defendants were indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of kidnapping in violation, of 18 U.S.C. § 1201, as amended. The only issue on this appeal is whether the district court properly denied the defendants’ motion for twenty peremptory challenges granted to one charged with a capital crime under Rule 24(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., and to a list of the Government’s witnesses required to be furnished in a capital case under 18 U.S.C. § 3432.
If this case presented nothing more than the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the death penalty provision of section 1201 by the Court in United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968), we would be faced with the dilemma which has confronted the courts in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), and which was thoroughly discussed by Judge Winter in United States v. James A. Watson, 496 F.2d 1125 (4 Cir. 1973). However, the 1972 amendment of Section 1201 by the Congress, which eliminated the death penalty, removed kidnapping from the classification of a capital offense and, accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of either the rule or statutory section upon which their motion was based.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Affirmed.

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: 6