Task: songer_r_stid

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is a respondent.

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner filed his application with the Railroad Retirement Board for an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 228a et seq., on April 29, 1946, alleging he was sixty-five years of age and still held rights to return to service with the Florida East Coast Railway Company.
The application was referred to the Bureau of Retirement Claims, a unit of the Board, and after an initial hearing the Bureau found that petitioner was discharged from the service of the Railway on May 21, 1933 and was not, as he claimed, in “the employment relation to an employer” on August 29, 1935. He was not otherwise an “employee” on or after August 29, 1935 and was not eligible for an annuity under the Act. Petitioner was notified of the Bureau’s finding. He then appealed to the Appeals Council of the Board and after submitting his evidence to that unit of the Board, the Council on. February 8, 1947, sustained the decision of the Bureau. He then appealed to the Board, claiming the Appeals Council erred in its action. The Board remanded the case to the Appeals Council, directing it to hear and receive additional evidence to be offered by petitioner, and also further argument, which the Council did, and on August 16, 1948, it rendered its decision again affirming the decision of the Bureau of Retirement Claims. Petitioner again appealed to the Board, and on April 19, 1949 the Board affirmed the decision of the Appeals Council denying the claim of petitioner to an annuity. The Board adopted as part of its decision an additional finding of fact to the effect that petitioner had notice before August 29, 1935 of his discharge by the Railway.
The decision of the Board is before us for review under section 11 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228k, and section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 355(f).
Petitioner claims service with the Railway as a trainman from November 11, 1913 to March 1915, and as a switchman from January 1925 to January 1929, and from June 1932 to May 1933. Pie made claim for other Railroad service in and before June 1932. He says he was an “employee” on the “enactment date” of the Railroad Retirement Act August 29, 1935, by being “in the employment relation to” an “employer.”
The Board found the petitioner was not in the employment relation to the employer on August 29, 1935, as required by the Act, and was not eligible for an annuity under the Act. The record made before the Board amply sttpports its decision, no error of law appearing, its decision is conclusive on this court. Squires v. Railroad Retirement Board, 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 182, and cases there cited; Barton v. Railroad Retirement Board, 3 Cir., 177 F.2d 710; Monahan v. Railroad Retirement Board, 7 Cir., 181 F.2d 751.
The decision of the Board is affirmed.

Question: What is the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is a respondent?
年. not
数. Alabama
日. Alaska
的. Arizona
月. Arkansas
用. California
成. Colorado
名. Connecticut
时. Delaware
件. Florida
一. Georgia
请. Hawaii
中. Idaho
据. Illinois
码. Indiana
不. Iowa
新. Kansas
文. Kentucky
下. Louisiana
分. Maine
入. Maryland
人. Massachussets
功. Michigan
上. Minnesota
户. Mississippi
为. Missouri
间. Montana
号. Nebraska
取. Nevada
回. New
在. New
页. New
字. New
有. North
个. North
作. Ohio
示. Oklahoma
出. Oregon
是. Pennsylvania
失. Rhode
表. South
除. South
加. Tennessee
败. Texas
生. Utah
信. Vermont
类. Virginia
置. Washington
理. West
本. Wisconsin
息. Wyoming
行. Virgin
定. Puerto
改. District
市. Guam
期. not
以. Panama
Answer:

Answer: 年