opinion: ORDER
  This appeal, perfected from an order of the district court striking the name of John W. Collis from the rolls of attorneys admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, has been submitted for consideration pursuant to Rule 3(e), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
  Respondent was disbarred by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Kentucky), Kentucky Bar Association v. Collis, 535 S.W.2d 95 (Ky.Ct.App. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 (1976), and a collateral attack on said state disbarment proceeding was denied in Collis v. Reed et al., 413 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Ky.1976), affirmed, Getty v. Reed et al., 547 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1977).
  On January 20, 1976, the district court issued an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from the bar of that court, and after intervening proceedings and a full evidentiary hearing the disbarment order from which this appeal was perfected was entered, and this appeal followed. It is clear from the record that the respondent was afforded a full measure of due process in a scrupulously fair proceeding, and that the findings of the district court were based on uncontroverted facts. It was the district court’s conclusion that respondent had “engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct of the degree and with the frequency that [justified] the striking of his name from the rolls of attorneys admitted to the practice in [the] District in lieu of any lesser sanction,” and since no abuse of discretion is apparent from the record, the district court’s determination is not open to review. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). Accordingly,
  IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is affirmed.
instruction: 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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear