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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Your task is to determine which category of state government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Union Norman BETHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants, Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner, individually; J.J. Brown, etc., individually; Lewis S. Livings, etc., individually; and Joel E. Aills, etc., individually, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 83-5727.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 18, 1984.
Kevin X. Crowley, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Dept, of Natural Resources, Bruce Barkett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.
Leslie M. Kannan and Lisa Hemmer, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., Leanne J. Frank, Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi, P.A., Miami, Fla., David Paul Horan, Key West, Fla., for amicus curiae, Secretary of Commerce.
Joshua M. Morse, III, Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tallahassee, Fla., for amicus curiae, Organized Fishermen of Fla., Inc.
Before TJOFLAT and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS , District Judge.
Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In July 1982, Bethell was arrested eight miles beyond Florida territorial boundaries by Florida agents and charged with a violation of Fla.Stat. § 370.1105(2) (1983), which prohibits the possession of fish traps and the taking of finfish with fish traps. Bet-hell filed this civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), seeking a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional as applied outside the boundaries of the state, preliminary and permanent injunctions against its extraterritorial application, and damages. The district court granted Bet-hell summary judgment regarding the constitutionality of the statute, and issued a permanent injunction against its application outside Florida boundaries. The court reserved ruling on the issue of damages. The State appeals; we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1982) (allowing interlocutory appeal from an order granting an injunction).
Since the State’s appeal, the Florida Supreme Court has construed section 370.-1105(2), under which Bethell was arrested, and determined that it does not apply outside the territorial boundaries of the state. Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we no longer have a live controversy before us on this issue. We thus are obliged to vacate the district court’s order granting injunc-tive relief and to remand the case for disposition of any remaining claims. See Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 201-02, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969) (vacating judgment and remanding case which had “lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.”)
VACATED and REMANDED.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Which category of state government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 6