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:
ROBINSON et al. v. OREM.
No. 11215.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 28, 1952.
Decided June 26, 1952.
Herman Miller, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Robert E. Lynch, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granting summary judgment in an action arising out of a sale of real estate. Appellant purchased the property in question from appellee, who was represented by a real estate agent. An action was also brought against the agent, but has been disposed of and is not of interest here.
In the action with which iwe are now concerned, filed October 10, 1949, appellant alleged fraud and misrepresentation in that he had been told that the rear boundary of the property purchased was beyond where he later found it to be. However, the record discloses that appellant was aware that the property in question was of irregular shape and also aware that the agent was not clear on the boundaries and dimensions. The sales contract which the parties executed, dated August 16, 1946, and the deed by which the property was later conveyed, dated October 7, 1946, made no reference to area or to metes and bounds, but identified the property by lot and square number, thereby incorporating clear means by which appellant might have ascertained the true boundaries and dimensions. Howenstein Realty Co. v. Richardson, 1943, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 135 F.2d 803. Appellant had constructive notice o'f the public records containing the precise metes and bounds of the property at a time more than three years prior to his filing, and he is therefore precluded by the statute of limitations from maintaining this action. District-Florida Corporation v. Penny, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 268, 66 F.2d 794.
Having found no genuine issue of material fact in our examination of the record, but instead that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that there was no error in the grant of summary judgment.
Affirmed.
. D.C.Code (1940) § 12-201.

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: 53