Task: songer_app_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 an appellant.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered against the appellant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for uttering a forged United States treasury cheek in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 (1964).
The sole issue on appeal is whether denial of the appellant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was error violating the appellant’s sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.
On August 9, 1968 a complaint charging appellant with forging a United States treasury cheek was filed. Appellant learned of the complaint when a detainer was lodged against him at Auburn Prison, where he was serving a sentence pursuant to a New York state conviction.
On October 2, 1968 appellant mailed a letter to the United States Marshal at Utica, New York, in which he requested a speedy disposition of the pending charge. The United States Marshal at Utica replied to the appellant on October 7, 1968 stating that he had referred the request to the United States Marshal in the Southern District of New York. On November 22, 1968, the appellant wrote another letter with the same request to the clerk of the Southern District of New York. In both letters the appellant said that his reason for requesting expeditious disposition was his concern that the detainer might interfere with his chances for parole from Auburn.
Although the indictment in this case was filed on December 2, 1968, the government’s first application for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was not made until September 10, 1969. Appellant first appeared in court on September 23, 1969 and pleaded not guilty; counsel was assigned the next day, and trial set for October 14,1969.
On September 29, 1969, appellant moved to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. The evidence presented at the hearing on the motion showed that the nine-month delay in trying appellant’s ease was due principally to the work load of the United States Attorney’s office. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Tyler found that there was no purposeful delay by the government; that a nine-month delay was not per se excessive; and that there was no way to ascertain whether the detainer had affected the date fixed for appellant’s release from Auburn or if an earlier trial would have resulted in an earlier release date. The case proceeded to trial without a jury and resulted in a finding of guilty. A sentence of 18 months to be served consecutively with the prior New York State conviction was imposed.
Our disposition of this case is governed by the standards adopted by this court in United States ex rel. Solomon v. Mancusi, 412 F.2d 88, 90. (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 936, 90 S.Ct. 269, 24 L. Ed.2d 236 (1969). See also United States v. Dooling, 406 F.2d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 1969); Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361-362, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957). We look to four factors in deciding whether there has been a violation of the right to a speedy trial: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the prejudice to the defendant; and waiver by the defendant. The two letters sent by the appellant here and his subsequent actions absolve him from any responsibility for the delay in this case. However he has failed to establish his right under the other three criteria.
The only period of real inaction in the case was from December 2, 1968 when the complaint was filed, to September 11, 1969, when the government requested defendant’s appearance to plead to the indictment — a total of nine months. While we agree that the case does not present a model of expedition on the part of the government, we cannot say that the nine-month delay was per se unreasonable.
There is no claim that the delay here was either purposeful or oppressive, and Judge Tyler, in his ruling on the motion to dismiss, found that the delay was not deliberate. As for prejudice, the appellant makes no claim that the delay in any way impaired his defense or that his imprisonment before trial was caused by federal authorities. The only prejudice claimed is that the delay in federal trial may have influenced the judgment of the State Parole Board in determining whether to release the defendant from Auburn at an earlier date. The claim is based upon the speculation that if defendant had been convicted in federal court at an earlier date, the State Parole Board might have released him earlier to the federal authorities. Thus his total period of imprisonment, state and federal, might have been shorter. This is altogether too speculative to establish the prejudice which defendant must show.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant?
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