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:
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS CHAPTER, et al., Plainitiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 73-1623.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 6, 1974.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 4, 1974.
James M. Simons, Cameron M. Cunningham, John Howard, Austin, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Roland Allen, W. 0. Shultz II, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appel-lees.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEWIN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This suit was filed in the District Court to obtain a mandatory injunction requiring the University officials to permit a large meeting of approximately one thousand persons of the National Lawyers Guild, a non-campus group, to be held at the student union February 16-19, 1973. Presumably, it was also to test the constitutional validity of certain Board of Regents’ rules requiring co-sponsorship by an Assistant Dean of the appropriate college (here, the College of Law) for a non-campus group. No such co-sponsorship was sought or denied.
The time for the meeting has long since gone by and there is no indication that there now is, or will be, a real case or controversy as to which these plaintiffs have adequate standing to challenge the co-sponsorship requirement or the need for injunctive relief. The case as posed is moot. The judgment of the District Court is therefore vacated and the case remanded to dismiss as moot so the case will not spawn any precedential consequences. United States v. Mun-singwear, Inc., 1950, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S. Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; St. Pierre v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199; Troy State University v. Dickey, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516-517; New Left Educ. Project v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir., 1973, 472 F.2d 218, 221; Lebus, Regional Director v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 281, 283; United States v. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n., 5 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 1231. And see especially our very recent decision United States Servicemen’s Fund v. Killeen Independent School District, 5 Cir., 1974, 693 F.2d 489.

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: 43