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:
James Luther HILL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16634.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Sept. 26, 1961.
Joseph A. Bukaty, Kansas City, Kan., for appellant, James Luther Hill filed brief (typed), pro se, with alternative petition for writ of habeas corpus.
John S. Boyer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee, F. Russell Millin, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief.
Before SANBORN, MATTHES, and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on January 29, 1960, sentencing James Luther Hill to four years’ imprisonment. The judgment was based upon the verdict of a jury finding the defendant (appellant) guilty of having unlawfully possessed an unregistered sawed off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5851, as charged in a one-count indictment, to which he had entered a plea of not guiltjn Upon his trial he was represented by counsel appointed by the Court.
The record evidence shows without dispute that close to midnight on November 16, 1959, the defendant was driving a Chevrolet automobile at an excessive rate of speed and without lights on Prospect Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri; that he had borrowed the car from William H. Salmon; that Larry Lee Germonprez was riding with him in the car; that the defendant was arrested by Kansas City police officers for his violation of the traffic laws; that he and his companion were first placed in the back seat of the police car and questioned; that there was a locked suitcase behind the front seat of the Chevrolet, which was transferred by the officers to the police car; that the defendant and his companion together with the Chevrolet were driven to a police station; that the defendant there stated that the suitcase was not his and that he did not have the keys to it; that the keys were discovered by the police officers on the floor of the police car near where the defendant had been seated while being questioned; that the suitcase was then opened and found to contain among other items the sawed off unregistered 12-gauge shotgun later referred to in the indictment.
The only controverted issue at the trial was whether the defendant possessed the suitcase and the unregistered shotgun. The defendant testified that he did not know who the suitcase belonged to; that he never saw it before he was stopped by the police; that the suitcase and none of its contents belonged to him; that the sawed off shotgun was not his. Under the evidence the issue of possession was clearly one for the jury, and was resolved by them adversely to the defendant by their verdict of guilty.
On this appeal the defendant asserts in substance (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because no motion was made prior to the trial to suppress the evidence of the Government and no motion was made during the trial to strike such evidence, and (2) that the trial judge made improper comments and highly inflammatory and prejudicial remarks during the trial.
The record completely fails to sustain these contentions of the defendant. He was represented by thoroughly competent counsel. There was no erroneous ruling, comment or remark made by the trial judge during the trial.
Our conclusion is that this appeal is without any merit whatsoever. The appeal is dismissed as frivolous. Mandate will issue forthwith.

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