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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
In the Matter of Theodore A. WATKINS, Bankrupt-Appellant, v. William B. GROVER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellee.
No. 71-1087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 20, 1971.
Theodore A. Watkins, in pro. per.
Philip M. Arnot, Eureka, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On December 2, 1970, Watkins filed a notice of appeal from orders of the district court, entered respectively on October 30 and November 24, and which affirmed decisions of the referee in bankruptcy with reference to unrelated matters arising in Watkins’ bankruptcy proceedings.
To the extent the appeal involves the order of October 30, it was untimely and hence must be dismissed. Rule 4(a) F.R.App.P.
By the order of November 24, the district court affirmed the referee’s denial of a discharge in bankruptcy to Watkins and additionally affirmed his determination and judgment that Watkins and several other persons were jointly liable to the trustee for rent accruing on their use of real property belonging to the bankruptcy estate.
We agree with the district judge that, on the record made, the referee was acting well within his discretion in refusing to grant Watkins a discharge; that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of money damages, and that those orders should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 9