What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the state or territory in which the case was first heard. If the case began in the federal district court, consider the state of that district court. If it is a habeas corpus case, consider the state of the state court that first heard the case. If the case originated in a federal administrative agency, answer "not applicable". Answer with the name of the state, or one of the following territories: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, or "not applicable" or "not determined".

Opinion:
Alfred D. ARELLANES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22879.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 25, 1969.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1969.
F. Conger Fawcett (argued), of Graham & James, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
John Milano (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
Honorable Fred M. Taylor, United States District Judge, District of Idaho, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
The validity of appellant’s conviction has been challenged before this court on three earlier occasions. The issues tendered to the district court in appellant’s last application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were encompassed in a prior petition on which a hearing was held and an order entered denying relief, which this court affirmed. Arellanes v. United States, 353 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1965), affirming 238 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.Cal.1964). In these circumstances, appellant was entitled to a hearing on the present motion only upon a showing that the ends of justice would be served by a redetermi-nation of the issues. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). Although the opinion of the district court dismissing the motion is couched largely in other terms, it left no room to doubt that it was the district court’s view that reliti-gation of the issues would not serve the ends of justice. That decision was within the district court’s discretion (see Sanders v. United States, supra, at 18, 83 S.Ct. 1068), and will not be disturbed here.
Affirmed.

Question: In what state or territory was the case first heard?

Choices:
not
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachussets
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
New
New
North
North
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
South
South
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin
Puerto
District
Guam
not
Panama

Answer: 5