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:
CLAUSON v. DRUMMOND et al.
No. 4252.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Feb. 24, 1950.
For original opinion, see 172 F.2d 221.
Theron Lamar Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, Ellis N. Slack, Robert N. Anderson and Leland T. Atherton, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, and Alton A, Lessard, United States Attorney, and Edward J. Harrigan, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Portland, Me., on the brief for appellant.
William B. Mahoney and Drummond & Drummond, of Portland, Me., on the brief for appellees.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and MAHONEY and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of motion by appellees, filed January 24, 1950, asking this court to recall its mandate of February 12, 1949, and to direct the District Court “to reconsider this cause in the light of Section 7 of the Technical Changes Act of 1949, Public Law 378, 81st Congress, Chapter 720, 26 U.S.C.A. § 811(c), U.S. Cong. Ser. P. 2729, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Commissioner v. Church’s Estate, 335 U.S. 632, 69 S.Ct. 322; Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 335 U.S. 701, 69 S.Ct. 301",
And it appearing that the granting of such motion would be superfluous and unnecessary, since the judgment of this court did not direct the entry of judgment for appellant but merely reversed the judgment of the District Court on the law as it then stood, and the mandate of this court “commanded that such further proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the aforesaid judgment of this court, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had, the said appeal notwithstanding”, thereby leaving the District Court free to consider the applicability of a supervening Act of Congress before entering a final judgment upon remand,
Now, therefore, without determining whether this court has power to recall its mandate issued at a prior term of court, it is ordered that the motion for recall of mandate be, and the same is hereby, denied.

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: 8