opinion: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roy HARMAN, Appellant.
  No. 9039.
  United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Argued Oct. 3, 1963.
  Decided Oct. 4, 1963.
  John Ritchie, Jr., Richmond, Va., Court-assigned counsel (Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
  Harry G. Camper, Jr., U. S. Atty., for appellee.
  Before BOREMAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and R. DORSEY WATKINS, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  Roy Harman was tried by a jury on a three-count indictment charging violation of U.S.C. Title 26, sections 5601(a) (4), 5601(a) (7) and 5604(a) (1), and was found guilty on all counts. The court imposed concurrent sentences of four years on each count. Although no exceptions were taken to the charge to the-jury, and no motion for a new trial was made, Harman contends that there were plain errors in the charge, affecting substantial rights, of which this court will take notice. Rule 52(b), F.R.Cr.P.
  Errors in the charge were in part expressly, and in part tacitly, admitted by the United States. These consisted in failing to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the respective counts, and in instructing the jury as to an inapplicable presumption. On the whole record substantial rights of the defendant were affected (United States v. Levy, 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 995; Morris v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 525; United States v. Max, 3 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 13; United States v. McKenzie, 6 Cir., 1962, 301 F.2d 880). The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court for a new trial.
  Harman also moved in this court for admission to bail pending appeal. In view of the present disposition of the case, and the nature of the remand, any application for bail should be directed to the District Court.
  Reversed and remanded,
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