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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

UNITED STATES of America v. Abraham MINKER, Appellant.
No. 14720.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 9, 1964.
Decided Jan. 13, 1964.
B. Nathaniel Richter, Richter, Lord, Toll & Cavanaugh, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Thomas F. McBride, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before STALEY, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant enlargement on bail. The appellant is presently serving a sentence in the Lewisburg Penitentiary following a conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The validity of that conviction and sentence is not challenged in this proceeding. However, while serving sentence on that conviction, he was indicted by the Federal Grand Jury for a separate and distinct offense. He then applied to the District Court for enlargement on bail in order that he might be “afforded the effective assistance of counsel” in preparation for the trial on this indictment. Of course, this appeal does not involve a claim that the appellant has been or will be denied the opportunity to confer with his attorney at any proper time.
The district court held that it was without jurisdiction to grant bail. We think it abundantly clear that this decision was correct in the circumstances of this case.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?
A. cabinet level department
B. courts or legislative
C. agency whose first word is "federal"
D. other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
E. other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
F. other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
G. other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
H. Distric of Columbia
I. other, not listed, not able to classify
Answer: