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.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CARAVELLE WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent.
No. 73-1260.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Dec. 23, 1974.
Before CASTLE, Senior Circuit Judge, and STEVENS, Circuit Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC.
On petition for rehearing, .the respondent brings to our attention that although thirteen ballots were challenged, only twelve challenges were sustained. The Board did not resolve the challenge to the remaining ballot because it would not have affected the outcome of the election. However, because the court did not reach the question of whether the Board properly excluded the ballots of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss, the unresolved challenge does become significant. If this ballot and those of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss are counted, the election result would stand at 35 votes for the Union and 35 votes against the Union. The Union would thus have failed to achieve majority status, and the Board’s order to bargain would be improper. The NLRB, in its answer to the respondent’s petition, contends that the Board correctly excluded the ballots of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss.
We noted that the Board failed to decide whether Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss resided at home or were economically dependent on their fathers. An absence of a finding on this factor is not dispositive, however, if, on balance, the other factors set forth in Caravelle I support a factual determination that these relatives do not share a community of interest with their fellow employees. In this regard, the Board concluded that:
the interests of the Paradiso wives and children were closely allied to those of the Company which was principally owned, controlled, managed, and supervised by members of the Paradiso family. Similarly, we conclude that the interests of Donald W. Kloss were closely linked to those of his father, a supervisor, shareholder, and director who took an active part in management affairs.
These conclusions are supported by the record and satisfy the requirements of Caravelle I. Accordingly, the Board properly excluded the votes of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss. We therefore need not remand for Board resolution of the challenge to the final ballot, and we affirm our prior decision to enforce the Board’s order.
No judge in regular active service having requested that a vote be taken on the suggestion for an en banc rehearing, the same is hereby denied.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer: