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:
In re AYERS.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted November 18, 1927.
Decided December 5, 1927.
Petition to Modify Denied December 17, 1927.
No. 1981.
Patents ©=>64 — Claims for drain valve for draining water of condensation from cylinders of steam engines held anticipated.
Certain claims for drain valve device for draining water of condensation from cylinders of steam engine or locomotive held, properly rejected, as anticipated by Seiders’ valve of May 21, 1918, on consideration of patent of Miser, March 2, 1909, in connection with Edwards patent, October 1, 1912.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
In the matter of the application of Augustine R. Ayers for a patent for a drain valve for draining water of condensation from cylinders of a steam engine. 'From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, rejecting some of his claims, he appeals.
Affirmed.
H. H. Benjamin and R. B. Stewart, both of Washington, D. C.'., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
The invention is described as a drain valve for draining the water of condensation from the cylinders of steam engines or locomotives. It comprises a valve which automatically permits the water of condensation to drain from the cylinders when the steam pressure is relieved, or reduced below a certain point, and automatically closes when the steam is turned on. The valve also acts automatically to prevent an undue amount of air from entering the cylinders when the locomotive is coasting. In case the valve fails to operate as intended, a pressure-actuated piston is provided to force the valve open and allow the water to drain off. The operation of the piston is controlled manually by turning oh or off the steam supply. The piston is so arranged that the fluid pressure operates to force the valve from its seat, and a spring is provided for returning the piston to its initial position when the fluid pressure is cut off.
The application as amended contained 19 counts, all of which were rejected by the Examiner. The applicant appealed to the Board of Examiners in Chief, who affirmed the rejection of claims 1 to '5, 7, 10 to 14, 16, and 17, but allowed applicant’s other claims. Erom this decision the applicant appealed to the • .Commissioner of Patents, who affirmed the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 7, 16, and 17, and recommended that claim 14 be rejected, as not patentable over claim 10. Accordingly 11 of applicant’s claims were allowed by the Commissioner, and 6 were rejected. The applicant has appealed from this decision, thereby challenging the rejection of claims «1 to 4, 7,16, and 17, and the adverse recommendation as to claim 14.
Claims 1 and 17, which are illustrative, read as follows:
“1. A drain-válve device, comprising, in combination, a casing adapted for communication with a fluid container to be drained and having a drain port, a valve for closing said port responsive-to fluid pressure and unresponsive to the flow of liquid, and fluid pressure actuated means for moving the valve.” ■
“17. A drain-valve device, comprising, in combination, a easing adapted for communication with a fluid container to be drained and having a drain port, a bushing provided with an adjustable valve seat, and a relatively fixed seat opposed thereto, which are arranged between said communication and port, and a ball valve and a socket for said valve arranged below both of said valve seats, the valve being responsive to fluid pressure and unresponsive to liquid.”
The «references relied upon are Miser, March 2,1909; White, April 16, 1912; Edwards, October 1, 1912; and Seiders, May 21, 1918.
The decisions of the Patent Office disagreed as to the claims which were finally allowed by the Commissioner, but were concurrent in rejecting the claims involved in this appeal. We do not And it necessary to discuss the claims in detail, for we fully agree with the decision of the Commissioner. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 16 are rightly rejected on the patent of Miser, in connection with the Edwards patent. Claims 7 and 17 are anticipated by Seiders’ valve. Claim 14 is not patentably distinguished from claim 10, since, as said by the Commissioner, “there is nothing inventive in adjusting a spring.” The refusal to allow additional claims is also approved.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is accordingly affirmed.

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: 2