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.
Your task is to determine the nature of the counsel for the respondent. If name of attorney was given with no other indication of affiliation, assume it is private - unless a government agency was the party

Thomas WILLIS, Jr., and Albert Rance, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22787.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 16, 1966.
James R. Gillespie, San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.
Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief Crim. Section, Reese L. Harrison, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., Western Dist. of Texas, San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and AINSWORTH and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants were convicted of unlawful importation and knowing concealment of heroin in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. The only error asserted is the denial by the District Court of the appellants’ motion to suppress evidence seized by customs officers in a search of appellants’ car at the time of their arrest six miles from the Mexican border occurring minutes after appellants’ re-entry into the United States. The evidence showed that the Customs Agent stationed at the border had reasonable cause to suspect that the appellants were bringing heroin into the United States in a manner contrary to law. He ordered a customs investigator to detain the car and its occupants if it left town. The investigator kept the appellants under constant surveillance except for a brief time when the car was out of sight. This was a valid border search. Valadez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 721. The requirement of “reasonable cause to suspect” is satisfied if it is shown that the officer who issues the order for the search is possessed of sufficient information to satisfy the test. Cf. Marsh and Martinez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 317.
The judgment of conviction is
Affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the counsel for the respondent?
A. none (pro se)
B. court appointed
C. legal aid or public defender
D. private
E. government - US
F. government - state or local
G. interest group, union, professional group
H. other or not ascertained
Answer: