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:
POST HOUSES, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 16348.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 11, 1967.
Decided Oct. 30, 1967.
Matthew J. Broderick, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Lawrence J. Sherman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent.
Before KALODNER, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
In the instant ease Post Houses, Inc. seeks to review and set aside an Order of the National Labor Relations Board and the Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement.
The record discloses that on August 10, 1965, the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 397, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Post Houses, Inc. had engaged in conduct in violation of § 8 (a) (1), (3) & (5) of the National Labor Relations Act-,’ 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), (3) & (5), and that after hearing, the Board found that Post Houses, Inc. violated § 8(a) (1), (3) & (5) of the Act, by laying off an employee, Joseph Duffy, because of his union activities; by threatening its employees with reprisals for union activities; by creating an impression of surveillance of their union activities; and by refusing to bargain collectively with the union on or after its request of July 6, 1965.
The record also discloses that the Board ordered Post Houses, Inc. to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from infringing upon its employees’ rights under § 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 157); to offer to reinstate Joseph Duffy with back pay; and to bargain collectively with the union upon request and post appropriate notices.
Post Houses, Inc. in its petition for review contends that the Board erred in making its findings and in entering its Order. The Board urges that substantial evidence in the record sustains its findings and its Order.
On review of the record we subscribe to the Board’s contention. The petition for review will be denied and the Board’s Order will be enforced. An appropriate Order may be submitted by the Board.

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