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:
HUDSPETH v. WOODS.
No. 9804.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 6, 1934.
George 0. Patterson and George 0. Patterson, Jr., both of Clarksville, Ark., and Joseph M. Hill, Henry L. Fitzhugh, and John Brizzolara, all of Port Smith, Ark., for appellant.
S. W. Woods, of Harrison, Ark., for ap-pellee.
Before STONE and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and WYMAN, District Judge.
STONE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order or decree denying homestead to Mrs. Hudspeth, wife of an involuntary bankrupt.
We are faced with a motion of appellee to dismiss. The referee determined the controversy adverse to Mrs. Hudspeth, who took the matter .on review to Judge Martineau, who, on August 29, 1932, entered the following order:
“The above entitled matter having been heard upon the petition of Mrs. A. T. Hud-speth for review of the order of the referee denying her petition for homestead, and argued by counsel, the court being now well and sufficiently advised in the premises doth deny the said petition for review and doth affirm the said order of the referee for reasons stated in his opinion. To which ruling the petitioner Mrs. A. T. Hudspeth excepts.
“John B. Martineau, Judge.”
Thereafter, by an order dated March 29, 1933, and entered March 31, 1933,=. the court made a “Final Decree Affirming Referee’s Order and Denying Petition for Review/’ as follows:
“Now, on this day the above case coming on for final decree and the court having heretofore heard the application of the petitioner Mrs. A. T. Hudspeth, for a review of the order of the referee denying her petition for homestead, together with the evidence in relation thereto, and the argument of counsel in support of said petition, and having heretofore filed herein findings of fact and declarations of law which said findings of fact and declarations of law where adverse to the claim of the petitioner and in affirmance of the finding and order of referee.
“It is, therefore, by the court considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the findings of the referee herein are affirmed, and the petition of Mrs. A. T. Hudspeth for exemption of Lot 7 in Block One, O’Neal Heights Addition to the City of Harrison, Arkansas, as a homestead be and the same is hereby denied and said property held an asset in the hands of the trustee of the estate of A. T. Hudspeth, Bankrupt, for the payments of debts of said estate, free of any claim or right to homestead therein in favor of the petitioner. To which Judgment, order and decree the petitioner at the time excepted and prayed and was granted an appeal herein.
“John E. Martineau, Judge on Exchange.”
This appeal was taken April 25, 1933, from the decree dated March 29, 1933. Ap-pellee contends that the first of the above-quoted orders was a final decree and that the entry of the seeond order could not be made to extend the time allowed for appeal. This position is correct. While appellant seeks to treat the first order as a mere finding of fact and statement of conclusions of law, it is, obviously, more than that. It is an order completely disposing of the controversy. It is denominated an “Order of District Court Denying Petition for Review and Affirming the said order of referee.” The language therein is “doth deny the said petition for review and doth affirm.” It is true that the second order is more formal and more spe cifie, but had the seeond order never been made, there would be no question of the matter having been fully disposed of, The situation is ruled by De Mayo v. United States, 58 F.(2d) 231, this court.
While the above ground is sufficient to compel dismissal of this appeal, it is not out of place to state that the appeal should be dismissed upon another ground also. This is a “proceeding in bankruptcy” within the meaning of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act as amended. USCA title 11, § 47 (b); Taylor v. Voss, 271 U. S. 176, 46 S. Ct. 461, 70 L. Ed. 889; Schnurr v. Miller, 49 F.(2d) 109, 111, this court; Ingram v. Wilson, 125 F. 913, 915, this court; Gulbransen Co. v. Couch, 61 F.(2d) 932 (C. C. A. 5). That section requires appeals from such “proceedings” to be granted by this court alone. The appeal here is allowed by the District Court, which was without jurisdiction so to do.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained and the appeal dismissed.

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: 7