What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the state associated with the respondent. If the respondent is a federal court or federal judge, note the "state" as the United States. The same holds for other federal employees or officials.

Opinion:
FLORIDA ex rel. HAWKINS v. BOARD OF CONTROL OF FLORIDA et al.
No. 624.
Decided March 12, 1956.
Robert L. Carter and Thurgood Marshall for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General of Florida, Ralph E. Odum, Assistant Attorney General, and John J. Blair, Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
Per Curiam.
The petition for certiorari is denied.
On May 24, 1954, we issued a mandate in this case to the Supreme Court of Florida. 347 U. S. 971. We directed that the case be reconsidered in light of our decision in the Segregation Cases decided May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. In doing so, we did not imply that decrees involving graduate study present the problems of public elementary and secondary schools. We had theretofore, in three cases, ordered the admission of Negro applicants to graduate schools without discrimination because of color. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631; cf. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U. S. 637. Thus, our second decision in the Brown case, 349 U. S. 294, which implemented the earlier one, had no application to a case involving a Negro applying for admission to a state law school. Accordingly, the mandate of May 24, 1954, is recalled and is vacated. In lieu thereof, the following order is entered:
Per Curiam: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded on the authority of the Segregation Cases decided May 17,1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. As this case involves the admission of a Negro to a graduate professional school, there is no reason for delay. He is entitled to prompt admission under the rules and regulations applicable to other qualified candidates. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631; cf. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U. S. 637.

Question: What state is associated with the respondent?

Choices:
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Federated States of Micronesia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Marshall Islands
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Palau
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Interstate Compact
Philippines
Indian
Dakota

Answer: 11