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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

Opinion:
Roy DIBBLE, Appellant, v. Ruth Mark Jensen CRESSE, formerly known as Ruth Mark Jensen, Appellee.
No. 17732.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 10, 1959.
I. R. Mayers, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Henry Burnett, Walter Humkey, Phillip W. Knight, Miami, Fla., Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey, Miami, Fla., of counsel, for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Brought by plaintiff-appellant against Sid W. Jensen, alleged to be a resident of Dade County, Florida, and Ruth Mark Jensen Cresse, hereafter entitled Ruth Cresse, alleged to be a resident of the State of New Jersey, the suit was for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile collision, in the State of Florida, between an automobile driven by him and an automobile owned and driven by Ruth Cresse.
On Motion of defendant Ruth Cresse, that it affirmatively appears from the amended complaint that, under Sec. 1391 (a), Title 28 U.S.C.A., there is improper venue, the suit was dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff has appealed.
Here citing in support the decision and opinion of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, in Burke v. Greer, 114 F.Supp. 671, appellant insists that, though defendant has not waived the venue privilege, Sec. 1391 (a) supra, the fact that plaintiff joined her with a co-defendant who was suable in Florida, has in some way not made clear deprived her of it.
Appellee, citing Olberding v. Illinois Central R. Co., 346 U.S. 338, 74 S.Ct. 83, 98 L.Ed. 39, insists that, upon principle and authority, appellant’s position is without merit, and the judgment must be affirmed. We agree.
The judgment is affirmed.
. “1391. Venue generally.
“(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.”

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?

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: 8