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 determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
Thomas E. ENGLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTOMATIC CANTEEN COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15914.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
July 20, 1965.
Lyman Brownfield, Columbus, Ohio, Brownfield, Kosydar, Folk, Yearling & Dilenschneider, Phillip K. Folk, Victor S. Krupman, Columbus, Ohio, on brief, for appellant.
Earl F. Morris, Columbus, Ohio, Wright, Harlor, Morris, Arnold & dander, by Rudolph Janata, Jr., Jon M. Anderson, Columbus, Ohio, on brief, Fried-lund, Levin & Friedlund, by Arthur M. Solomon, Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MACHROWICZ, District Judge.
. Judge Thaddeus M. Machrowicz of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
' In 1946 appellant England joined with thirteen other plaintiffs in filing two suits against appellee, referred to herein as Automatic Canteen, in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, at Chicago, seeking treble damages under the anti-trust laws, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 4 and 15. After these suits had been dismissed as to the other thirteen plaintiffs, an order was entered by the Court in Chicago on April 4, 1949, dismissing England’s suits “with prejudice.”
On March 29, 1949, six days before the dismissal of his suits in Chicago, England filed his complaint in the present case seeking to recover treble damages against Automatic Canteen under the anti-trust laws.
Under date of February 11, 1964, the district court sustained the motion of Automatic Canteen for summary judgment on the ground that the dismissal with prejudice of England’s Chicago cases is res judicata as to all issues between the parties which were raised or might have been litigated in those cases. England has appealed from the summary judgment order.
An examination of the court files shows that the same matters were set forth in the complaints in the Chicago case and the present case; and that all matters complained of in the present case were alleged to have occurred at a time prior to the dismissal of the Chicago cases in 1949, no post 1949 events being charged in the pleadings in the present case.
A dismissal of a suit with prejudice bars a subsequent action seeking the same relief. Olsen v. Muskegon Piston Ring Co., 117 F.2d 163 (C.A. 6). We agree with the district court that the dismissal of the Chicago cases with prejudice bars the present case under the doctrine of res judicata. Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 75 S. Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122; Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 281 U.S. 470, 50 S.Ct. 374, 74 L.Ed. 972; Esquire, Inc. v. Varga Enterprises, Inc., 185 F.2d 14 (C.A. 7); Cleveland v. Higgins, 148 F.2d 722 (C.A. 2), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 722, 66 S.Ct. 27, 90 L.Ed. 428.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 9