opinion: CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION and C. P. C. Chemical & Plastics Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellees, v. DI-NOC CHEMICAL ARTS, INC., Appellant.
  No. 9774.
  United States Court of. Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Argued March 2, 1965.
  Decided March 11, 1965.
  H. Stephen Madsen, Cleveland, Ohio (Joseph T. Gorman, Kent, Ohio, A. Baron Holmes III, Charleston, S. C., Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, and Hagood, Rivers & Young, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for appellant.
  Don G. Nicholson, Miami, Fla., and Ernest F. Hollings, Charleston, S. C. (Hollings & Hawkins, Charleston, S. C., and Nicholson, Howard & Brawner, Miami, Fla., on brief), for appellees.
  Before BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUTCHE-SON, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a foreign corporate defendant’s motions to dismiss the action for lack of in personam jurisdiction and for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) to the-Northern District of Ohio.
  The court’s order was based upon the complaint, exhibits attached thereto, and affidavits. We agree that at this stage of the case, the motions were properly denied. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
  Affirmed.
  . Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b).
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