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.

PER CURIAM.
We affirm in open court the order of the district court denying bail to Ivan Dmitrievich Egorov and Aleksandra Ivanovna Egorova pending trial, and we deny their application for bail.
Egorov and Egorova, who are husband and wife, were arrested on July 2, 1963 on a charge of conspiracy to commit espionage in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 794 (a), an offense which may be punishable by death. Thereafter on July 15, 1963, an indictment was returned in the Eastern District of New York charging against appellants and three others with conspiracy to communicate, deliver and transmit to a foreign government, the Soviet Union, information relating to the national defense of the United States “and particularly information relating to military installations, rocket launching sites, naval installations, troop movements, ship movements, shipments of military supplies and atomic weapons, shipyards and military waterfront facilities, with intent and reason to believe that the said information would be used to the advantage of the said foreign government, to wit, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” and to engage in other espionage activities, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 794(a).
As the crime charged is punishable by death there is no right to bail before conviction. In such cases Rule 46 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically states that admission to bail is a matter of discretion,
We agree with the district court that the nature of charges, the fact that the defendants are citizens of a foreign country, and all the circumstances of this case justify the position of the United States Attorney in urging that bail be denied.
Whether we treat this as an appeal from the order of the district court; Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951); United States v. Noto, 226 F.2d 953 (2 Cir. 1955), or as an application to this court for bail the result is the same.
We are in agreement that bail should be denied.

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