opinion: UNITED STATES of America v. William GARBER, Individually and as President of William Garber, Inc., Appellant.
  No. 16539.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued Sept. 14, 1967.
  Decided Oct. 11, 1967.
  Walter E. Knecht, Jr., O’Keefe, Knecht & Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
  Robert S. Blank,' Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Drew J. T. O’Keefe, U. S. Atty., Robert St. Leger Goggin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before BIGGS, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
  OPINION OF THE COURT
  PER CURIAM.
  No dispute of fact is presented by this appeal. The appellant, Garber, was convicted as an individual and as President of William'Garber, Inc. of wilfully attempting to evade and defeat personal and corporate income taxes for 1960 and 1961. 26 U.S.C. § 7201. We have before us a single issue of law: did the trial court err in placing undue emphasis on certain portions of the Government’s evidence in his charge ? A United States Judge has the right to comment on the evidence. United States v. Stayback, 212 F.2d 313, 319 (3 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 911, 75 S.Ct. 289, 99 L.Ed. 714 (1955). We have examined the charge carefully and we can find no error in it. The judgment will be 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 "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