opinion: G. M. GOOCH LUMBER SALES COMPANY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
  No. 18873.
  United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
  Jan. 21, 1969.
  Harry W. Wellford, Tennie C. Leonard, McCloy, Wellford & Clark, Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.
  Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Lester R. Uretz, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
  ORDER
  The above-entitled cause being considered upon a Stipulation to Vacate Decisions and Remand Cases, and it appearing that the parties hereto have agreed to a compromise and settlement of the review taken herein, and that the questions involved have become moot, it is this 21st day of January, 1969,
  Ordered that this cause may be, and it is hereby, remanded to the Tax Court of the United States with directions to vacate its decision entered in the above-entitled case, and to enter decisions in accordance with the parties’ agreement in compromise;
  And it is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court forthwith transmit certified copies of this order to the Clerk of the Tax Court, (Docket 403-66), and to counsel for each of the parties, together with certified copies of said Stipulation to Vacate Decisions and to Remand Cases.
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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear