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 "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES et al., Appellants, v. James Austin IMUS, Appellee.
No. 9971.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1968.
Robert V. Zener, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., William T. Thurman, U. S. Atty., and Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on the brief), for appellants.
Richard J. Leedy, Salt Lake City, Utah, (Galen Ross, Salt Lake City, Utah on the brief) for appellee.
Before LEWIS, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The United States and others appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of Utah granting a preliminary injunction restraining the induction of appellee into the Armed Forces. Appellants assert the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction under the statutory limitations for judicial review contained in 50 U.S.C. App. 460(b) (3).
This court and others have interpreted the cited statute in accord with the present contentions of the appellants but the correctness of these decisions has been clouded by the granting of certiorari by the Supreme Court in Oesterich v. Selective Service System, Local Board No. 11, 10 Cir., 390 F.2d 100, cert. granted, 5/20/68, 391 U.S.-, 88 S.Ct. 1804, 20 L.Ed.2d 651. Under these circumstances we think the district court could properly retain its jurisdiction through preliminary injunction pending authoritative determination of the extent, if any, of such jurisdiction.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?

Choices:
cabinet level department
courts or legislative
agency whose first word is "federal"
other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
Distric of Columbia
other, not listed, not able to classify

Answer: 0