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:
KNUDSEN BROTHERS DAIRY, INC., Appellee, v. Orville L. FREEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States of America, Appellant.
No. 361, Docket 26698.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 4, 1961.
Decided June 13, 1962.
Neil Brooks, Assistant General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. (William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Alan S. Rosenthal, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Joseph A. Walsh, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
John D. Fassett, New Haven, Conn. (Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellee.
Willis F. Daniels, Harrisburg, Pa., John D. Fassett, New Haven, Conn., on the brief, for Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. and Suncrest Farms, Inc., amici curiae.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Sydney Berde, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief, for the State of Minnesota, amicus curiae.
Frederick U. Conard, Jr., Hartford, Conn., Reuben Hall, Boston, Mass., Frederic P. Lee, Washington, D. C., John A. Cardon, Washington, D. C., Frank B. Lent, William J. Moore, New York City, Richard Wiles, Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief, for New England Milk Producers’ Association, Dairymen’s League Cooperative Association, Inc., Connecticut Milk Producers’ Association, Metropolitan Cooperative Milk Producers’ Bargaining Agency, Inc., Mutual Federation of Independent Cooperatives, Inc., amici curiae.
Daniel C. Williams, Syracuse, New York, on the brief, for Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc.,, amicus curiae.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and STEEL, District Judge.
Sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
We have withheld decision of this case-since argument of the appeal on May 4, 1961 because the Supreme Court on June 19, 1961 granted certiorari in Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.2d 726 (3 Cir. 1961). Since the Supreme Court’s decision in-the Lehigh Valley case on June 4, 1962 disposes of the government’s contentions, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
STEEL, D. J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

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: 0