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:
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DADE BONDED WAREHOUSE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 73-2652.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1974.
William G. Earle, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Harold C. Knecht, Jr., Coral Gables, Fla., for Moore Pipe & Sprinkler.
Dan G. Wheeler, Jr., Miami, Fla., for Blanche R. Bergin.
Hugh L. Wood, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, Fla., for Dade Bonded Warehouse.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this action General Motors asserted claims against both Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc. and Blanche R. Bergin, executrix of the estate of Cecil A. Bergin. Although the jury was charged on the various theories of liability possibly applicable to Bergin, their verdict did not mention the claim against her. Furthermore, a careful search of the record reveals that no judgment was ever entered on this claim, although the district court did deny General Motors’ motion for a new trial against Bergin. Thus the judgment fails to adjudicate all the claims and liabilities of all the parties, as required by F.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No certificate under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) appears in the record. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2781; F.R.Civ.P. 58; 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e. g., Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 45; Foret v. McDermott, 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 992. See also, United States v. Indrelunas, 1973, 411 U.S. 216, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 36 L.Ed.2d 202; State National Bank of El Paso v. United States, 5 Cir. 1974, 488 F.2d 890.
Should the district court enter a new judgment on General Motors’ claim against Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., and issue the Rule 54(b) certificate, the appeal from that judgment may be submitted on the record and briefs prepared for this appeal, supplemented by the new judgment and certificate, and on the oral arguments heretofore heard.
Dismissed.

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