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:
Michelle OLIVER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KALAMAZOO BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, State Board of Education et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 80-1006.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued June 19, 1980.
Decided Dec. 15, 1980.
Arthur Staton, Jr., Ford, Kriekard, Sta-ton, Allen & Decker, Kalamazoo, Mich., for defendants-appellees Kalamazoo Bd. of Ed. et al.
Michael H. Jackson, Denver, Colo., Louis R. Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of Mich., Richard P. Gartner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants-appellants State Bd. of Ed. et al.
Stuart J. Dunnings, Jr., Dunnings & Canaday, Lansing, Mich., Nathaniel R. Jones, Gen. Counsel, NAACP, Thomas Atkins, NAACP Special Contribution Fund, New York City, Duane Elston, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellees.
James A. White, Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, Lansing, Mich., for intervenors.
Samuel J. Flanagan, Jr., Brian K. Lands-berg, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., James S. Brady, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for U. S. intervenors.
Before ENGEL and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The issue raised in this appeal by appellant, Kalamazoo Board of Education, was decided this day in an appeal by the Michigan State Board of Education in No. 79-1723. An issue there and the issue here is whether the district court erred in ordering implementation of recommendations in the Green-Cohen report with respect to the Kalamazoo school system. The panel in No. 79-1723, Weick and Brown, JJ. and Peck, Senior Judge, decided that the district judge did err in so ordering the implementation of such recommendations, and the order was vacated and the case was remanded. Since this panel agrees that the order vacating and remanding the order of the district court in No. 79-1723 is correct and agrees with the reasons stated therefor, this panel adopts the opinion in No. 79-1723 insofar as it relates to the issue presented here.
The order of the district court is therefore vacated and the case is remanded.

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: 22