opinion: BORG-WARNER ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a body corporate, Appellee, v. Anthony J. ROSSI, Individually and trading as Rossi Refrigeration Sales and Service, Appellant.
  No. 73-1205.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fourth. Circuit.
  Argued Oct. 4, 1973.
  Decided Nov. 5, 1973.
  William F. Mosner, Towson, Md. (Joseph K. Pokorny, Towson, Md., on brief), for appellant.
  Mitchell Stevan, Baltimore, Md. (Sagner, Stevan & Harris, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
  Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  Appellee Borg-Warner Acceptance Corporation held the promissory note, with supporting lien documents, representing the deferred balance of $16,323.-00 owing by Anthony J. Rossi to Cryocool, Inc. for the purchase price of certain refrigerator systems. Upon Rossi’s default in this obligation, appellee sued him in the District Court for this amount. From a judgment in favor of the appellee, Rossi appeals.
  After review of the record and consideration of the arguments of counsel, on brief and orally, we affirm for reasons assigned in the opinion of the District Judge. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corporation, etc. v. Rossi, etc., 365 F.Supp. 56, D.C.M.D.1972.
  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