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:
TILDEN et al., California State Board of Harbor Com’rs, v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 17, 1927.
No. 5253.
Courts <g=»303(2) — Action for penalty against California harbor commissioners for violating federal statute held not “suit against state” (Safety Appliance Acts [45 USCA §§ 2,8-10]).
Action by United States against California state board of harbor commissioners to recover a penalty for violation of Safety Appliance Act March 2, 1893, § 2, amended by Act March 2, 1903 (45 USCA §§ 2, 8-10 [Comp. St. §§ 8606, 8613-8615]), in the operation of State Belt Railroad was not a “suit against the state,” since State Belt Railroad, though belonging to state, is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and required to comply with federal Safety Appliance Act.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Suit against the State.]
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of California; Frank H. Kerrigan, Judge.
Action by the United States against C. L. Tilden and others, comprising the California State Board of Harbor Commissioners, operating the State Bolt Railroad. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Leon E. Morris, of San Francisco, Cal. (Edward M. Jaffa, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and Thomas J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., and M. C. List, Sp. Atty., of Washington, D. C.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUD-KIN, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge.
In the court below the plaintiffs in error, who constitute the board of state harbor commissioners of California, were adjudged to pay a penalty of $100 for violation of section 2 of tb© Safety Appliance Act, approved March 2, 1893, as amended by the Act of March 2,1903 (32 Stats. 943 [Comp. St. §§ 8606-8613-8615; 45 USCA §§2,8-10]).
The writ of error presents the questions which were before this court in MeCallum v. United States (C. C. A.) 298 F. 373, 38 A. L. R. 1143, in which we held that such an action was not a. suit against the state of' California, that the State Belt Railroad, traversing the harbor front of San Francisco, and belonging to the state, was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and that it was required to comply with the federal Safety Appliance Act. No authorities are now presented and no reasoning is advanced which require a reconsideration of the conclusion which was there reached.
The judgment is affirmed.

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: 5