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:
GORMAN LEONARD COAL CO. v. PENINSULAR STATE S. S. CORPORATION. MYSTIC TERMINAL CO. v. SAME.
Nos. 2797, 2798.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 15, 1933.
G. Philip Wardnor, of Boston, Mass., for appellants.
Fitz-Henry Smith, Jr., and Thomas H. Walsh, both of Boston, Mass., and Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City, for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.
MORTON, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit to recover for damage alleged to have been done to the tank-top ceilings and other parts of the steamship Lake Gaiewood by the Mystic Terminal Company in discharging her. The libelant is the owner of the vessel; the Gorman Leonard Coal Company chartered her to carry a cargo of coal from Newport News to Boston, the 'charterer to do the loading and discharging. Tlie coal company arranged with the Mystic Company to discharge the steamer at Boston on its account. The libel charges that the discharging was negligently done and inflicted damage on the vessel beyond reasonable wear and tear. The district judge found for the libelant against the Mystic Company as primarily liable, and against the coal company as secondarily liable. Both respondents appealed.
The appeal presents no serious question of law. Neither party objects to the rulings of law on which the case was decided. The contention of the appellant is that the district judge was wrong in his findings of fact. The testimony was greatly in conflict, both as to the condition of the vessel at the time when she was loaded, and as to the damage, if any, done during the discharge. Several of the important witnesses testified orally, and the district judge had the advantage of seeing them on the stand. It was undisputed that, immediately on the completion of the discharge, a written statement of damage was handed by the master of the vessel to the stevedore. The mate of the steamer testified that he remonstrated to the stevedore while the discharge by the Mystic Company was in progress against the roughness with which it was being done. The stevedore denied this testimony. On an official survey two or three weeks later, the steamer was found in a damaged condition. In the interim she had carried other cargoes; and the respondents contended that such of the damage found on. the survey as did not antedate the discharge by the Mystic Company had been done in loading and discharging the later cargoes.
Grab buckets weighing about four tons were used by the Mystic Company in discharging the Lake Galewood. It cannot be doubted that the use of such heavy and powerful appliances on a vessel not specially built for carrying coal would bo likely to do damage unless they were very carefully handled. If the Mystic Company saw fit to use them, it was bound to see that requisite care was exercised. There was a strong suggestion that the discharge was hurried because it ran into Saturday afternoon. It would serve no useful purpose to go into the details of the evidence and the contradictions. In such a situation the conclusions of the district judge carry much weight (Merchants’ & Miners Transp. Co. v. Nova Scotia S. S. Corp., 40 F.(2d) 167 (C. C. A. 1), and we are by no means satisfied that they wore erroneous. He carefully discriminated between the various items of damage claimed; and ho allowed only those which he was satisfied were caused by negligence in handling the grab buckets. His decree must be affirmed.
The decree of the District Court is affirmed with costs to the appellee in this court.

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: 2