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:
JAX ICE & COLD STORAGE CO., a Corporation, Trading as Jax Brewing Company, Appellant, v. Conway P. COE, United States Commissioner of Patents, and Jackson Brewing Company, a Corporation, Appellees.
No. 7554.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 12, 1940.
Decided Dec. 9, 1940.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 7, 1941.
See 61 S.Ct. 837, 85 L.Ed.-.
Thomas L. Mead, Jr., of Washington, D. C., and Ernest P. Rogers, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
W. W. Cochran, U. S. Patent Office, R. F. Whitehead, and Herbert H. Porter, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before STEPHENS, VINSON, and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
This case is governed by Coe v. Hobart Manufacturing Company, 70 App.D.C. 2, 102 F.2d 270, and J. C. Eno (U.S.) Limited v. Coe, 70 App.D.C. 337, 106 F.2d 858. We have carefully considered the earnest and thoughtful argument of appellant’s counsel that we should overrule those cases, but we are still of opinion that they were rightly decided.
The judgment appealed from is therefore 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: 3