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:
Bobbie Alvarado MORA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20127.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 24, 1963.
Bobbie Alvarado Mora, pro se.
Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., K. Key Hoffman Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and WHITEHURST, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a denial of a § 2255 motion to vacate conviction and sentence. Defendant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and that he was denied due process of law in that he lacked the requisite understanding of the charge made against him and he was not apprised of his right to plead not guilty and get a trial by jury. We find no substantial merit in these contentions and accordingly affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged with robbing a Federal Nai'cotics Agent of property belonging to the United States. He had court appointed counsel. At his arraignment, the defendant in open court waived prosecution by indictment and consented to the proceedings being conducted on information. The information was read twice to defendant by the United States Attorney. Despite defendant’s assurances to the Court that he fully understood the nature of the charges, the information was read to the defendant in Spanish by an interpreter who informed the Court that defendant stated he understood the charges. The defendant then stated that he desired to plead guilty. Scrupulously guarding the defendant’s rights, the Judge questioned the defendant who stated several times that he was not coerced, had not been offered a deal, was not afraid, and that he was pleading guilty because he had committed the crime. The record also shows that the defendant was no novice in the ways of criminal law. In his efforts to make certain that the defendant understood fully the nature of the proceedings, his rights, etc., the Judge was aware as the record now reflects that the defendant had several prior convictions for which he had received sentences. The record adequately shows that the defendant fully understood the entire arraignment and sentencing proceedings and the consequences arising therefrom. No further hearing was needed. 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255.
Affirmed.

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: 2