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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sinclair D. SMALL, Appellant.
No. 383, Docket 31069.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 1967.
Decided April 14, 1967.
Herbert S. Siegal, New York City, for appellant.
John R. Bartels, Jr., Asst. U. S., Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City, John A. Stichter, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MOORE and HAYS, Circuit Judges, DOOLING, District Judge.
Sitting by designation, from the Eastern District of New York.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted on two counts of receiving and concealing narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 173 and 174. At trial, narcotics seized at the time of his arrest, and narcotics seized shortly thereafter from his apartment pursuant to a warrant were received in evidence against him.
Upon a pretrial motion, appellant sought to suppress the narcotics. After a hearing, the motion was denied. Appellant claims on appeal that it was error to deny his motion because: (1) the search warrant for his apartment was based on a false affidavit and hence invalid; and (2) there was no probable cause for the arrest.
These claims grow out of a single alleged inconsistency in the testimony of agent Antonelli at the suppression hearing. Antonelli testified that he was first alerted to the activities of appellant by an informant who, in late July of 1965, told Antonelli, among other things, the make, model and license number of appellant’s car. Antonelli also testified that he confirmed that information through the New York State Bureau of Motor Vehicles in early August, 1965. On cross examination, it was revealed through an exhibit that the permanent registration for the car bearing that license number was not issued until September 3, 1965.
The search warrant was issued on the affidavit of agent Antonelli, alleging information received: (1) by personal observation; (2) from an informant in November of 1965 (a different informant from the July informant); (3) from the records of Consolidated Edison; and (4) from the files of the F.B.I.
The testimony of agent Antonelli at the suppression hearing established that he personally had observed appellant intermittently during the months of August, September, October, November and December of 1965. The observed activities together with the information received (and subsequently corroborated) from the November informant established probable cause for the arrest.
It is apparent that the alleged inconsistency described above could undermine the warrant and the arrest only by rendering Antonelli totally unbelievable as an affiant and a witness.
Antonelli’s credibility was a question for the judges below who observed his testimony. We refuse to say that a single apparent inconsistency will render everything that a witness says unbelievable as a matter of law.
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: 0