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.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this income tax case, by confining our attention to the individual facts of the case and the sole question involved, we avoid discussion of the many and somewhat conflicting decisions based on the individual facts of those cases, which are not those of this case. Now the facts in this case, about which there is no dispute, are these:
Percy H. Clark, the appellant income taxpayer, who lived in Pennsylvania, on December 30, 1924, created an irrevocable trust for each of his eight children and made the Willoughby Company trustee. The latter administered the trust in an account No. 2. The assets of the Willoughby Company, which were 1400 shares of the common stock of the Portland Electric Power Company, were held by it in an account known as No. 1. Clark had had the Willoughby Company incorporated for his own purposes and he owned all of its stock. On October 8, 1929, petitioner wrote the Willoughby Company requesting it to “donate the said stock * * * to my Children’s Trust, to be held in Willoughby No. 2 Account and to be administered as part of the assets held under the aforesaid Deed of Trust,” and on said day the directors of the Willoughby Company, by resolution, ordered the transfer of said 1400 shares made, and it was done. After ordering this stock transfer made, the directors made no further order. On the same day the Willoughby Company, acting as trustee, sold the stock for an excess over its cost and in its separate income report for each child it returned such profit and thereafter paid the tax thereon.
It further appears, as stated in the government’s brief: “The earnings and profits of the Willoughby Company accumulated after February 28, 1913, amounted to $15,029.74 on October 8, 1929. The Commissioner included $15,029.74 in the petitioner’s income for 1929 as a dividend for the Willoughby Company.” The brief further states that on appeal the Tax Board held “the Commissioner was right in including the above mentioned $15,029.74 in petitioner’s income as a dividend from the Willoughby Company.”
As appears in the opinion of the Tax Board, “The petitioner controlled the Willoughby Co. It acted solely to acconv modate him in making the transfer. He enjoyed the use of the property by having it transferred for his own purposes. This was the use he wanted to make of the property. He would have enjoyed it no more had it been distributed to him directly. The surplus of the corporation was wiped out.”
We are of opinion the Tax Board was right in so holding. The earnings and profits, $15,029.74, here concerned belonged to the taxpayer, and, had they been distributed by the company, would have come to him. But instead of so receiving them, he chose to transfer them to the children’s trust. Under Pennsylvania law he was responsible for the minor children’s maintenance and support, so that the transfer to account No. 2 correspondingly relieved him of his statutory duty. Such relief made him, to that extent, a beneficiary. Savage v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 82 F.(2d) 92. After full consideration of all the questions raised, we are of opinion the Tax Board was right, and its action 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