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 second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other, not listed, not able to classify". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

LAMANTIA v. UNITED STATES et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 1925.)
No. 4497.
Appearance ©=>24(5) — Defendant, who excepted to libel for failure to state cause of action, waived defect in service of process.
Defendant, who appeared in case and excepted, to the libel on ground that it failed to state cause of action, waived any defect in service of process on him by appearing and invoking the court’s decision as to the merits of the claim asserted in the libel.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Poster, Judge.
Action by the United States against Anthony Lamantia and others. Judgment for the United States, and defendant Lamantia appeals.
Affirmed.
John E. Jackson and Stanford E. Owen, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Louis H. Burns, U. S. Atty., and Edwin H. Qrace, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and BARRETT, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment against the principal and sureties ón a bond given to procure the release of a motorboat which was seized, and against which forfeiture proceedings were instituted. The appeal was taken by one of the sureties, who complains of the judgment on the sole ground that there was no valid service of the citation to him in the proceeding. The appellant, without raising any question as to the service of process upon him, appeared in the cause and excepted to the libel therein on the ground that it sets forth no cause of action. By appearing and invoking the court’s decision as to the merits of the claim asserted in the libel, the appellant waived any defect in the service of process upon him. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 S. Ct. 982, 35 L. Ed. 659; Pease v. Rathbun-Jones Engineering Co., 228 F. 273, 142 C. C. A. 565.
The judgment is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other, not listed, not able to classify". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?
A. United States - in corporate capacity (i.e., as representative of "the people") - in criminal cases
B. United States - in corporate capacity - civil cases
C. special wartime agency
D. Other unlisted federal agency (includes the President of the US)
E. Unclear or nature not ascertainable
Answer: