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:
S. W. NOGGLE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 72-1678.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 1973.
Decided May 1, 1973.
Harry L. Brovvne, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
M. Namrow, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before GIBSON, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board’s Decision and Order are reported at 199 NLRB No. 107.
The S.W. Noggle Company was found by the NLRB to have committed an unfair labor practice in violation of §§ 8(a) . (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3), by threatening to discipline and later by the discharge of Mike Masonbrink. It is the contention of the General Counsel that the employer discharged Mason-brink because he advocated that the employees go out on strike for a new contract.
The Department Store, Package, Grocery, Paper House, Liquor and Meat Drivers, Helpers and Warehousemen, Local No. 955, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union), had represented a unit consisting of the employer’s ware-housemen and drivers for 30 years. On September 30, 1971, the three-year contract between the employer and the Union expired. Negotiations were in progress at the time of the events with which this action is concerned.
Masonbrink was a part-time employee of the Noggle Company from October 1969 to May 1970 when he enlisted in the Coast Guard. He returned from this military service in June 1971. At the end of June, through the efforts of his sister, Vickie Harrison, an order clerk for Noggle, he was rehired on a full time basis. He worked as a truck driver until mid-October when he requested and received a transfer to the warehouse. He worked in the warehouse about six weeks, until his discharge on December 1, 1971.
During the period when he was employed in the warehouse the Trial Examiner found that Masonbrink “was far from being a model employee.” On several occasions he refused to perform his duties as he was instructed to do although he stated that he later would go ahead and do them. He was reported by Bramer, the leadman, to Thomas Turner, the general manager for Noggle, who in turn complained of his conduct to the Union.
Several witnesses testified that they had heard Mansonbrink state that he would like to draw “rocking chair money” which was explained as meaning state unemployment compensation. Ma-sonbrink did not deny this but only stated that he could not remember saying it.
On November 15, at a meeting between the unit employees and several union representatives Masonbrink strongly advocated that the Union strike the company because of its failure to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. Leadman Bramer reported Masonbrink’s position to General Manager Turner. Turner spoke to Vickie Harrison on about November 29, and told her, “Vickie, we’re going to have to do something about Mike. He has the men upset about going out on strike.” When she replied that it was because the company had not negotiated a new contract yet he responded, “I can’t help that. He still has to get his orders out.” The Trial Examiner found that this was a threat to discipline Masonbrink.
Two days later, after Vickie had spoken to her brother concerning this conversation, Masonbrink called to Turner while he was in the warehouse, and told him that if he had anything to say to him he should do so directly and not to tell his sister. Turner made no response to this. At this point the stories of the parties diverge. Masonbrink states that they then began to discuss the performance of his work. Turner stated that he asked Masonbrink to fill a rush order and that Masonbrink refused because he was already working on another order. One of the other warehousemen heard this conversation and his version, while not identical to that of Turner’s tends to support Turner’s version. Both Mason-brink and Turner testified that Mason-brink said that if Turner thought he could do a better job he could do it himself, and that Turner stated to Mason-brink that if he did not like working there he could quit. Masonbrink admits that he told Turner that if he did not like the way he was doing his job Turner could fire him. This challenge was repeated several times and finally Turner did fire Masonbrink.
The sole issue on this appeal is a factual one, whether the finding of the Trial Examiner and the Board that Mason-brink was discharged for his advocacy of a strike was supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). ■ The Supreme Court has defined “substantial evidence” as:
“ ‘. . . such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 '[I]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.’ Labor Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300, 59 S.Ct. 501, 505, 83 L.Ed. 660. This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence Labor Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U.S. 105, 106, 62 S.Ct. 960, 961, 86 L.Ed. 1305; Keele Hair & Scalp Specialists, Inc. v. FTC, 275 F.2d 18, 21.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 619-621, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966) (footnotes omitted).
Considering first the finding by the Board that Turner had not requested Masonbrink to fill a rush order and been refused, we hold that this finding is not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. The issue was decided by the Trial Examiner as a matter of credibility, balancing the testimony of Turner that he had told Masonbrink to fill the order and been refused against Masonbrink’s denial of the incident and testimony that the conversation concerned only his work performance generally. The Trial Examiner appeared to ignore the testimony of Ralph Roberts, one of the other warehousemen, to the effect that he had heard the conversation between Turner and Masonbrink, and that he had heard Turner tell Masonbrink to fill an order. Although Roberts did not testify that Masonbrink had openly refused to comply with the instruction, Robert’s version of the confrontation is more consistent with Turner’s version than was Masonbrink’s in that Mason-brink denied that he was even told to fill an order.
Turning next to the statement made by Turner to Vickie Harrison with regard to Masonbrink’s advocacy of striking, the Examiner failed to fully examine this incident. Beyond reciting the facts of the statement and the bare finding that “I also find that Turner’s statement to Vickie constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act” there was no analysis of the statement. Turner denied that it was a threat to discharge Masonbrink. He stated that he wanted Vickie to see if she could get Mike to settle down. In view of the fact that Vickie Harrison had been instrumental in getting Masonbrink the job, and the cordial relationship which obviously existed between the small group of employees and the management, this is not an unlikely explanation for the conversation. From the record of this conversation it would be erroneous to draw the conclusion that Turner was threatening to fire Masonbrink for advocating a strike.
In view of the fact that Masonbrink had been employed in the warehouse only a short time, and that after the one occasion when a complaint had been made of Masonbrink’s sub-par performance Turner had promptly notified the Union, this record cannot support the finding by the Examiner that Turner had “put up with quite a bit” or condoned the prior misconduct of Masonbrink. This finding appears incredible. By employing such reverse logic, the mere condoning of inferior work, would give the employee a shield against dismissal for cause.
Even without the refusal by Masonbrink to fill the order on the day of his discharge, the record does not support the finding that he was not discharged for cause but for his union activities. It is clear that he initiated the confrontation with Turner. It is further undisputed that he several times challenged Turner to discharge him if Turner did not like the way he did his work, indicating that he would not even attempt to meet the standards which his employer would expect. This sort of defiant attitude by employees is not protected by either a Union shield or the National Labor Relations Act.
Considering the record as a whole, it is clear that the finding of a discriminatory discharge of this hostile and contentious employee is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board’s Order which required his reinstatement with back pay will not be enforced.
Enforcement denied.
. Of course, an employee, absent a protective agreement, may be discharged with or without cause so long as it is not for a reason prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act.
“It must be remembered that it is not the purpose of the Act to give the Board any control whatsoever over an employer’s policies, including his policies concerning tenure of employment, and that an employer may hire and fire at will for any reason whatever, or for no reason, so long as the motivation is not violative of the Act.” NLRB v. Ace Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841, 847 (8th Cir. 1965).
See also NLRB v. Red Top, Inc., 455 F.2d 721, 726 (8th Cir. 1972) (cases cited at n. 4).

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