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:
AINSWORTH v. SANFORD, Warden.
No. 9006.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 20, 1939.
Richard L. Voelker, Jr., of New Orleans, La., and Joseph E. Ainsworth, in pro. per., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Lawrence S. Camp, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger and J. Ellis Mundy, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before FOSTER and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and BORAH, District Judge.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
On November 9, 1936, Joseph E. Ains-worth was convicted under an indictment charging violation of the Internal Revenue Laws. He was given a sentence of three years on count 1, two years on count 2, two years on count 3, and two years on count 4, all sentences to run consecutively. The prisoner was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, on November 14, 1936.
The record discloses that on November 30, 1937, the district judge dismissed Ainsworth’s writ of habeas corpus. On September IS, 1938, application for anoth7 er writ was denied. His last application was denied on November 2, 1938, and he appeals.
The second count of the indictment charged Ainsworth with hawing in his possession a complete distilling apparatus without having registered the same with the “Collector of Internal Revenue”. This count was bad, and on February 17, 1938, while Ainsworth was still serving time imposed under the first count, an order correcting the sentence was entered by the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The sentence as corrected eliminated count 2 and its penalty, and the sentences on counts 1, 3, and 4 were made.to run consecutively. This correction was in conformity with the decision in Fleisher v. United States, 302 U.S. 218, 58 S.Ct. 148, 82 L.Ed. 208.
The order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus was correct.
.The judgment is affirmed.

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: 4