opinion: PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal from an order in bankruptcy, directing the sale for $9500 of nineteen automatic vending machines belonging to the debtor, which were in the possession of their manufacturer, who claimed a lien upon them in the sum of $4,754.79. It is not necessary to state in detail the evidence which justified the sale in the minds of the special master and the district judge who confirmed his report. Notice of the application was given to all known creditors, and the situation of the debtor was such as might well make it desirable to release the machines from the vendor’s claim even if its validity was questionable, which there is no reason to suspect. The trustee had no funds with which to redeem the machines, and after six months no plan of reorganization had been proposed. Possibly, though not certainly, the sale will force on a liquidation; in any event that is not a controlling consideration. The petition having been approved, the court had power to sell any property of the debtor, “upon such terms and conditions as the judge may approve.” § 116 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(3). To succeed the appellants must persuade us to substitute our discretion for that of the district court, and that under familiar principles we should not, and will not do.
  Order 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 "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear