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 "Distric of Columbia". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
George BROOKS, Appellant, v. Sam A. ANDERSON, Superintendent, D. C. Jail, Appellee.
No. 17412.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 5, 1963.
Decided April 4, 1963.
Mr. John F. Doyle, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H., Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. John R. Hess and Joseph G. Hitselberger, Asst. Corp. Counsel, also entered appearances for appellee.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Fahy and Burger, Circuit Judges.
BURGER, Circuit Judge.
On September 14,1962, George Brooks, an inmate of the District of Columbia Jail petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, naming as respondent Sam A. Anderson, the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Jail. The petitioner alleged that his confinement was not by virtue of any order or judgment of any court, and that he was. undergoing cruel and unusual punishment, which he described in detail.
The Superintendent moved to discharge the rule and dismiss the petition. Without passing on the motion, the District Court made the rule absolute and issued a writ of habeas corpus returnable on a day certain. The Superintendent filed no return or other response to' the petition, but appeared with Brooks, at the hearing. The petitioner testified in support of the petition. The District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it discharged the writ and dismissed the petition.
We note that the respondent moved to-dismiss the petition and that this motion was not ruled upon. However, the subsequent actions of the court indicate an implied denial of the motion. Once it appears that the petition states grounds-for relief under habeas corpus, the statute directs that “The person to whom the-writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention.” (Emphasis added.) 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In this case no return was made and as a result the record before us is inadequate for purposes of review. We have no alternative therefore except to remand to the District Court with instructions to require the respondent to file a. return as provided in § 2243 and reconsider the petition in light of the entire record so made. See Riley v. Pescor, 63 F.Supp. 1 (W.D.Mo.1945).
Remanded.
. We also note that Findings 2, 3 and 5 made by the District Court are not supported by evidence in this record. On oral argument there was some suggestion that numerous cases with comparable issues were heard by the same judge within the space of several days. If the District Court, in making findings in this case, relied on evidentiary matters common to several cases, such evidence should be incorporated by reference to the record in which such evidence may be found. Of course a finding by reference could not be allowed to stand if challenged on the ground that petitioner had no opportunity to meet the basic evidence. See Smith v. Anderson, D.C.Cir., 317 F.2d 172, April 4, 1963.

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

Choices:
DC in its corporate capacity
legislative body for DC local government
mayor, agency head or top administrator
bureaucracy providing service
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 5