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:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TENNESSEE-CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION, Inc., Respondent.
No. 12351.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1955.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Owsley Vose, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Judson Harwood, Nashville, Tenn., Charles D. Lockett, Knoxville, Tenn., for respondent.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order against respondent issued June 21, 1954:
And it appearing that the principal issue in the case is whether the union offered to bargain in good faith;
And it appearing that the union representative testified that the contracts submitted by the union to the trucking companies are identical, that the pay rates for the employees provided in the contract as to pickup and delivery, as to over-th e-road drivers, as to office employees, are uniform with respect to working conditions and rates of pay;
And it appearing that respondent offered to prove that all of the contracts of the union with all of the trucking companies are uniform and that there is no possibility of negotiating on a contract with this union except by signing the uniform contract, but the examiner refused to permit further testimony;
And it appearing that the evidence excluded was material and that the failure to receive and consider it is a denial of due process, National Labor Relations Board v. Burns, 8 Cir., 207 F.2d 434;
It Is Ordered that the case be remanded to the National Labor Relations Board with instructions to reopen the proceedings and to permit respondent to introduce the evidence proffered and also to introduce evidence upon the point whether or not the clerical office in Knoxville was transferred to Nashville because of the increased cost of operation under the union uniform contract for clerical workers. Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Adkins Transfer Co., Inc., 6 Cir., 226 F.2d 324.

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: 0