opinion: CASELLA v. NAGLE, Commissioner of Immigration.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
  November 12, 1928.
  No. 5495.
  Julian D. Brewer, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
  George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and George M. Naus, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
  Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
  RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
  This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a deportation proceeding arising under the Immigration Law. Deportation was ordered on the ground that the appellant was found managing a house of prostitution, or music or dance hall, or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes. The testimony before the department was exceedingly brief and without substantial conflict. Two immigrant inspectors testified that they visited a rooming house in Sacramento and there met the appellant, by whom they were taken into one of the rooms. The appellant asked if they wanted a girl, stating that she had only one. The girl was then brought in, and the appellant asked whieh one would take her first, whereupon one of the inspectors took the girl into another room. The appellant was called as a witness in her own behalf, and while she denied that she herself had committed acts of prostitution at the rooming house, or that the rooming house was a house of prostitution, or that she had received any of the earnings of prostitutes, she made no denial of the facts testified to by the inspectors. On this record, the finding of the department was so far supported by the testimony as to preclude judicial interference.
  The order of the court below is therefore 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