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:
W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE BAY FROSTED FOODS CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 9265.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 21, 1964.
Decided Aug. 19, 1964.
Jacob I. Karro, Deputy Asst. Sol., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C. (Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol. of Labor, Beate Bloch and Anastasia T. Dunau, Attys., and Jeter S. Ray, Regional Atty., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Wm. B. McLeod, Whitestone, Va. (Am-mon G. Dunton and Dunton, McLeod & Simmons, Whitestone, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CRAVEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court, we hold that the defendant was engaged in the processing of oysters, shrimp, scallops, fish and crabmeat within the meaning of § 213(b) (4) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and is thus exempt from the overtime, but not from the minimum wage, provisions of that Act, as amended. We need add nothing to what Judge Michie said in his opinion, except to advert briefly to one contention the Secretary advances here.
It is clear that oysters, large shrimp and crabmeat cannot be refrozen and retain their quality. They must be breaded and processed when fresh, so that the defendant’s operations must be geared to the seasons when they run and are available. This is substantially true also of scallops. It is not true, however, of small shrimp or of fish for processing into fish sticks, and the defendant buys substantial quantities of prefrozen fish and small shrimp.
The Secretary suggests that while the defendant’s processing of oysters, crab-meat, scallops and large shrimp may fall within the Congressional intention to partially exempt those processes which are dependent upon the vicissitudes of the catch, its processing of prefrozen small shrimp and fish is not.
General consideration of the necessity of prompt processing of fresh seafoods well may underlie the Congressional purpose, but the exemption the Congress provided is not so narrow. This is manifest in the exemption of those engaged in storing, packing for shipment and distributing frozen seafoods, operations which may have no, or only a remote, relation to harvesting seasons. We find in the statutory exemption no basis for a distinction between those employees who-process and handle previously frozen fish and small shrimp and those other employees of the same employer who handle and process exclusively the much larger volume of previously unfrozen products-of the sea.
Affirmed.
. Wirtz v. Chesapeake Bay Frosted Foods Corporation, E.D.Va., 220 F.Supp. 586.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(b) (4).
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 207.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 206.
. These account for a relatively small proportion of the defendant’s business, however. Its leading product is breaded oysters.

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