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:
NARRAGANSETT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 251, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 74-1248.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Oct. 9, 1974.
Decided Nov. 29, 1974.
Dennis J. Roberts, II, Providence, R. I., with whom Roberts & Wiley Inc., Providence, R.I., was on brief, for appellant.
Patrick A. Liguori, Providence, R.I., with whom Adler, Pollock & Sheehan Inc., Providence, R.I., was on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We are informed that the parties have reached agreement as to the meaning of the arbitrator’s award and its resubmission to the arbitrator for resolution of ambiguities pursuant to the district court’s order is no longer necessary or contemplated. Thus the arbitral process has apparently run its course. We dissolve the injunction and remand this case to the district court for further consideration in light of this development. See Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Co., 299 U.S. 259, 267-268, 57 S.Ct. 202, 81 L.Ed. 178 (1936); Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 607, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082 (1935).
We intímate no opinion as to the propriety of injunctive relief at a time when it had become clear by virtue of the award’s remand for clarification that the arbitral process had not yet run its course. However, under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement the union’s implicit obligation not to strike was at least suspended by Narragansett’s failure to abide by the arbitrator’s award. It appears to us that in continuing to challenge the award after it had been confirmed by the district court, Narragansett brought into play the contractual language dealing with the situation where one party “fails to abide” by a decision. Hence we have difficulty in seeing how the strike in question could have contravened the union’s no-strike obligation, and we suggest Narragansett address this question before the court on remand.
Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

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: 0