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:
Leonard HALL, Jr., Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.
No. 8592.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 20, 1966.
Decided July 26, 1966.
Robert F. Sweeney, Asst Atty. Gen., of Maryland, (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, and Donald Needle, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Maryland, on the brief) for appellee.
William F. Mosner, Towson, Md., for appellant.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF, BOREMAN, BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:
Maryland has applied to us for a vacation of a judgment we entered in a habeas corpus proceeding in 1963, relief which we find ourselves unable to grant.
Leonard Hall, Jr. was convicted of murder. After affirmance of his conviction, and the denial of post-conviction relief in the state courts, he sought habeas corpus relief in the District Court and appealed from denial of relief there. We reversed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Our judgment reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief was entered on January 17, 1963. It was based upon a conclusion of a majority of this Court that certain evidence introduced against Hall had been seized in violation of his constitutional rights, and that the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, should be applied retroactively.
As indicated above, the Supreme Court declined to take the Hall case in 1963, though, on June 7, 1965, it announced its decision in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601; in which it held that the Mapp rule should not be applied retroactively to judgments which had become final prior to the announcement of the Mapp opinion. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Linkletter was inconsistent, of course, with the decision of this court in Hall, but Hall preceded Linkletter by more than two years. In light of Linkletter, our decision in Hall now clearly appears to have been erroneous, but after the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Hall on June 10, 1963, our mandate in Hall had gone down and had long since become final.
Meanwhile, Maryland has retried Hall. It did so after preliminary proceedings in the state trial court, in which his confession was suppressed upon a finding that it was the coerced product of the unlawful search. The case went to the jury without the fruits of the search or the confession to bolster the state’s case, and the jury was unable to reach an agreement. A mistrial was declared.
The Linkletter doctrine was enunciated in an effort to preserve a substantial amount of finality in judgments which had become final before Mapp was decided. The same principle suggests that judgments which had become final long before Linkletter was decided should not be reopened merely upon a showing of inconsistency with that decision. We do not find authority in Rule 60(b) to recall our mandate, with the effect of reinstatement of the state court’s judgment imposing the death sentence. This is particularly true in light of the state’s intervening retrial of Hall, its suppression of the confession, and the mistrial which was declared. Nor do we think that we should construe the motion as one for a rehearing in which Hall’s objection to the original admission of his confession would be open for our consideration. Construed as a motion for a rehearing, it is very belated, and, subsequent to our decision, the Warden exhausted his rights of review in the Supreme Court.
What we say is without prejudice to any right Maryland may have to apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for a rehearing or reconsideration of its denial of certiorari to this Court, but, in the absence of any indication by the Supreme Court that Linkletter should be construed as opening up final judgments such as this one, we think there is no remedy in this Court to relieve the State of Maryland wholly or partially from the effects of the judgment entered in 1963, more than three years ago.
Motion denied.
. Hall v. State, 223 Md. 158, 162 A.2d 751.
. Hall V. Warden, 224 Md. 662, 168 A.2d 373, cert. den. 368 U.S. 867, 82 S.Ct. 78, 7 L.Ed.2d 65.
. Hall v. Warden, D.C.Md., 201 F.Supp. 639.
. Hall v. Warden, 4 Cir., 313 F.2d 483.
. Pepersack, Warden v. Hall, 374 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 1693, 10 L.Ed.2d 1032.
. In the habeas proceeding, Hall attacked his conviction not only on the basis of tbe evidentiary use of the fruits of the search, but also on the basis that his confession, used at the trial, was coerced and inadmissible. He also claimed that his lawyer had deprived him of his right to testify in his own behalf. We did not find it necessary to reach those questions. Now, in no event, could we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the habeas petition without formal consideration of those other claims.

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