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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "courts or legislative". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Anthony MAENZA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARSHAL, Eastern District of Louisiana, Appellee.
No. 16215.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
March 21, 1957.
G. W. Gill, New Orleans, La., Chas. A. Bellows, Chicago, 111., Gerard H. Schreiber, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
E. E. Talbot, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., M. Hepburn Many, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a companion case to No. 16,158, Maenza v. United States, 242 F.2d 339, and the parties agree that the facts of the two cases are identical. Presented is an appeal from an order of the Court below dismissing petition by Maenza for writ of habeas corpus filed a few days before his trial in case No. 16,158.
The sole question involved in the hearing on the petition for habeas corpus was whether Maenza was lawfully within custody of the United States Marshal. The return filed by the Marshal and the proof showed that a Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had entered an order to arrest petitioner upon an indictment there returned November 3, 1955; and that a Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a warrant of removal, upon the execution of which the Marshal assumed custody of petitioner.
The Judge of the Court below found that petitioner “is before the Court now as the result of his arrest on a valid warrant which issued from this Court by Judge Wright and certainly the Court in Chicago could not determine the question of his guilt or innocence on the federal charge of fleeing to avoid prosecution”.
The order dismissing the petition entered upon this finding was manifestly correct, and it is
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "courts or legislative". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
one or both houses of Congress
congressional committee
officer of Congress or other Congress related actor
Federal District Court (or judge)
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (or judge)
Court of Claims (or judge)
Tax Court (or judge)
Bankruptcy Court (or judge)
other court or judge

Answer: 3