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:
SOUTHERN FOUNDATION CORPORATION (Intercounty Construction Corp.), et al., Appellants, v. Mary E. HANKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 17863.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 20, 1963.
Decided Dec. 19, 1963.
Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George U. Cameal, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Bastían and Wright, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellee [plaintiff], as administratrix of the estate of Thomas A. Hankins, eleven years of age when he died, sought to recover damages arising out of the boy’s death, allegedly caused by the negligence of the District of Columbia and three contractors engaged in work on a construction project. A verdict against appellants [defendants] having been returned by the jury, the trial court was presented with motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reduction of the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, based on the claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions, and excessiveness of the verdict. All of these motions were denied by the trial court and this appeal followed.
Examination of the record convinces us that there was no error in any of the respects urged. Being in agreement with the opinion of the trial court in denying the several motions, the judgment of the District Court must be and is
Affirmed.
. Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554 (1963).

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