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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Your task is to determine which category of state government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Charles Arthur GRAY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Edward C. ELLSWORTH, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 25204.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1971.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1971.
Rehearing In Banc Denied March 29, 1971.
Robert Gannon (appeared), Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert L. Woodahl, Atty. Gen., Charles C. Lovell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Patrick J. Brophy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Mont., J. Fred Bordean (appeared), County Atty., Great Falls, Mont., for respondent-appellant.
Leonard J. Haxby, Butte, Mont., for petitioner-appellee.
Before HAMLEY and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and SCHNACKE, District Judge .
Honorable Robert H. Sehnacke, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
The district court held that appellee was denied due process by admission at his trial for burglary of the identification testimony of a witness who had viewed appellee before trial in a “one-man lineup” at which appellee did not have assistance of counsel. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). The court ordered appellee discharged from custody unless the state gave him a new trial.
We are satisfied from a reading of the trial record that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967).
The witness’ in-court identification was qualified and uncertain — she candidly agreed that she was “not really sure” that appellee was the burglar. On the other hand, the other evidence of ap-pellee’s guilt was all but conclusive: ap-pellee’s fingerprint was found at the scene of the crime on a piece of glass from the window which the burglar broke to effect entry; and a prescription bottle issued to appellee and marked with his name was found with the loot which was abandoned miles away. It is our belief that there is no reasonable possibility that the identification testimony might have contributed to appel-lee’s conviction.
Reversed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Which category of state government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 5