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 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 6861.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 19, 1954.
Decided Nov. 8, 1954.
Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, and Melvin Spaeth, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner.
Frank A. Constangy, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for the enforcement of an- order of the National Labor Relations Board which found that the Clearwater Finishing Company had been guilty of certain unfair labor practices and directed it to cease and desist therefrom and to restore' with back pay three employees found to have been discriminatorily discharged. Enforcement is resisted on the ground that the Board’s findings and order are not sustained by substantial evidence on the whole record. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the Board’s order and the report of the trial examiner and need not be repeated here.- We think that the findings and order are, sustained by substantial evidence on. the whole record except with respect to 'David Timmerman and in that respect we think that it is not so sustained. Timmerman was discharged as the result of an altercation with another employee. That the altercation may. have-arisen because of Tim-merman’s advocacy pf the union does not sustain the position of the Board, since the employer was within its rights in 'forbidding union advocacy during working hours. Who was to' blame in the altercation is, likewise, beside the point, as the employer had the right to discharge Timmerman because of the altercation whether he was to blame or not, so long as this was the real ground of the discharge and not a mere pretext. The evidence gives no substantial support-to the finding that the discharge, which occurred several months after the other discharges found to be discriminatory, was on account of Timmerman’s union membership, and we think that the conclusion to that effect must be condemned as speculative.
The findings and order of the Board will accordingly be modified by eliminating therefrom the findings with respect to Timmerman and the order for his reinstatement; and as so modified it will be enforced.
Modified and enforced.

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: 55