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 "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Robert ADAMSON et al., Appellants, v. CANADA STEAMSHIP LINES, Limited, Appellee. Harold H. TIMANUS, Administrator of the Estates of James K. Timanus, Deceased, and Dorothy Coleman Timanus, Deceased, Appellants, v. CANADA STEAMSHIP LINES, LIMITED, Appellee.
Nos. 11217, 11294.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 14, 1950.
Kenneth C. Davies, Detroit Mich., W. Alexander Eldridge, Cleveland, Ohio, Elmer II. Groefsema, Detroit, Mich., Victor M. Todia and J. Harold Traverse, Cleveland, Ohio, for Adamson and others.
Leckie, McCreary, Schlitz & Hinslea, Lucian Y. Ray, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Guernsey & Guernsey, Fostoria, Ohio, for Timanus and others.
Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The above causes coming on to be heard upon the transcript of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel, and the court being duly advised.
Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the orders of the District Court overruling the exceptions to the jurisdiction of the District Court, from which the above appeals were taken, be and are hereby affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the District Court.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "other". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
Indian Tribes
Foreign Government
Multi-state agencies, boards, etc. (e.g., Port Authority of NY)
International Organizations
Other
Not ascertained

Answer: 5