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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "courts or legislative". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
DYER et al. v. STAUFFER, Marshal.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 8, 1927.
No. 4660.
1. Creditor’s suit <@=>l — Court of equity has jurisdiction of creditors’ bill, where relief sought is of equitable character and parties are in court.
Court of equity has jurisdiction of creditors’ bill, if the relief sought is of an equitable character and parties against whom it is sought are in court.
2. Courts <§=>40 — Action of court of equity in proceeding with creditors’ bill without necessary parties or lacking prescribed conditions is not void.
If court of equity proceeds to hear creditors’ bill without necessary parties or lacking prescribed conditions, its action is erroneous, but not void.
3. Courts <§=>! — “Jurisdiction” means power to entertain suit, consider merits, and render binding decision, and “merits” means the various elements entering into or qualifying plaintiff’s right.
“Jurisdiction” means power to entertain suit, consider merits, and render binding decision, and “merits” means the various elements which enter into or qualify plaintiff’s right to relief sought.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; D. C. West-enhaver, Judge.
Suit by Elmer C. Dyer and others against George A. Stauffer, as Marshal, etc. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Herbert W. Nauts, of Washington, D. C., (U. G. Denman, of Toledo, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
D. L. Sears, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Toledo, Ohio (A. E. Bernsteen, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.”
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and GORE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The United States brought an equity suit in the court below against the stockholders of a defunct corporation, alleging that taxes were due from it, that the defendants had received its assets on distribution, and that they should restore enough to pay these taxes. There were due personal service and, upon default, a decree as prayed. When an execution was levied, the defendants in that suit filed this bill against the United States marshal to enjoin collection. Their claim is that the first decree was invalid, because the bill therein did not show a judgment at law against the corporation, and because the corporation was not made a party defendant. The court below dismissed this present bill. It was in effect, though not so named, a bill of review. The errors alleged being apparent on the face of the record, there can be no relief at this time, unless there had been such a lack of jurisdiction as to make the decree void, and upon such lack of jurisdiction appellant relies.
It is often said that a court of equity has no jurisdiction of a creditors’ bill, if there was no judgment at law, or if an indispensable party is not on the record. This is not an accurate use of the term. If the relief sought is of an equitable character, and the parties against whom it is sought are in court, it is clear that a court of equity has jurisdiction. Upon objection duly made, sometimes without objection, it should decline to proceed without necessary parties or lacking prescribed conditions; but, if it does proceed, its action is erroneous, not void. The distinctions between lack of jurisdiction and lack of a good case have been pointed out repeatedly, most recently in General Investment Co. v. New York Central; 271 U. S. 228, 230, 46 S. Ct. 496, 70 L. Ed. 920.
The decree is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "courts or legislative". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
one or both houses of Congress
congressional committee
officer of Congress or other Congress related actor
Federal District Court (or judge)
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (or judge)
Court of Claims (or judge)
Tax Court (or judge)
Bankruptcy Court (or judge)
other court or judge

Answer: 3