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:
Leland Carter STANFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 27252.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 1969.
Leland C. Stanford, pro se.
Yernol R. Jansen, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for respondent-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, FRAP, and it is therefore appropriate to dispose of this ease summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 758.
Appellant filed a complaint asking the district court to nullify his dishonorable discharge from the armed forces on grounds that he was denied his “constitutional rights” of indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a petit jury. Upon motion of the United States, the complaint was dismissed. We affirm.
Appellant has failed to allege exhaustion of the administrative remedies afforded under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1552. To consider his claims before he has exhausted those remedies would be premature. Beard v. Stahr, 1962, 370 U.S. 41, 82 S.Ct. 1105, 8 L.Ed.2d 321; Tuggle v. Brown, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 801, cert. denied 385 U.S. 941, 87 S.Ct. 311, 17 L.Ed.2d 220 (1966); McCurdy v. Zuckert, 5 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 491.
However, even if appellant had exhausted such remedies, he would not be entitled to relief. While the fifth amendment guarantees the right to indictment by grand jury, it also states an exception for cases arising in the armed forces. Ex parte Quirin, 1942, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S. Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. 3; Owens v. Markley, 7 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 751.
Similarly, the guarantee of the right to trial by jury has been held inapplicable to court-martial proceedings. Whelchel v. McDonald, 1950, 340 U.S. 122, 71 S.Ct. 146, 95 L.Ed. 141, rehearing denied 340 U.S. 923, 71 S.Ct. 356, 95 L.Ed. 666; Ex parte Quirin, supra.
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: 1