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:
Wayne McCOLLUM, Appellant, v. James E. BUSH, Appellee.
No. 21819.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 6, 1965.
Sam R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., Bruce Allen, County Atty., Ellis County, Waxahachie, Tex., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Paul R. Robertson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Charles Alan Wright, Cambridge, Mass., Billy J. Moore, Ennis, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with nearly all of the thorough and able opinion of the district judge. While we think that the opinion of a general medical practitioner as to sanity is admissible, it seems clear to us, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that in adjudicating Bush guilty and sentencing him to life imprisonment without any psychiatric testimony, the state denied Bush both a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
. The only psychiatric testimony given on behalf of the appellee was that of a clinical psychologist who was required to examine Bush during a 40 minute lunch recess during the trial. It is relevant to note that when the appellee was subjected to a real psychiatric examination following remand by the United States Supreme Court, Bush v. State of Texas, 372 U.S. 586, 83 S.Ct. 922, 9 L.Ed.2d 958, he was kept at the state mental hospital for treatment and observation for 89 days — thus dramatically highlighting the inadequacy of the 40 minute lunch hour period granted to the appellee’s psychologist at the trial.

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: 5