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.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES v. METCALF et al. In re F. P. NEWPORT CORPORATION, LIMITED.
No. 11059.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1946.
Rehearing Denied March 21, 1946.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, A. F. Prescott, Louise Foster, and Harold C. Wilkenfeld, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Carr, U. S. Atty., E. H. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Eugene Harpole, Sp. Atty., BIR., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Bailie, Turner & Lake, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee H. F. Metcalf.
Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS and PIEALY, Circuit Judges.
See In re F. P. Newport Corp., 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 630; Id., 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 504; Id., 9 Cir., 98 F.2d 453; City of Long Beach v. Metcalf, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 483; Security-First National Bank v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn., 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 50; United States v. Met-calf, 9 Cir., 131 F.2d 677; Security-First National Bank v. United States, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 563.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
In Security-First National Bank v. United States, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 563, we affirmed an order which, on February 6, 1945, affirmed an order of a referee in bankruptcy-which, on June 6, 1944, directed H. F. Met-calf, trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of F. P. Newport Corporation, Limited, bankrupt, to pay a claim of the United States, appellant here, for income taxes ($19,-363.65, plus interest) assessed against the trustee for the calendar years 1938 and 1939. The taxes were assessed on income-(rents and royalties) received by the trustee from the trust property mentioned in. Security-First National Bank v. United States, supra. The order of June 6, 1944, directed the trustee to pay appellant’s claim: out of income received or to be received: from the trust property.
The trustee did not obey the order of June 6, 1944. Instead, he applied for and, on October 17, 1944, obtained from the referee an order directing him to pay Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, a secured creditor of the bankrupt, $5,264.11 out of income received from the trust property — income on which taxes were then, and are now, due and owing to appellant. The court affirmed the order of October 17, 1944, by an order entered on April 13, 1945. From the order of April 13, 1945, appellant has appealed.
As indicated above, the order of October 17, 1944, in effect, directed that, before paying taxes on income received by him from the trust property, the trustee should pay the bank $5,264.11 out of such income. Thus, in effect, it was held that the bank’s right in and to such income was superior to appellant’s right to taxes thereon. We have held otherwise. The order of October 17, 1944, should not have been applied for, granted or affirmed.
The order of April 13, 1945, here appealed from, is reversed.
See Security-First National Bank v. United States, supra.
See Security-First National Bank v. United States, supra.

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

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: 0