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:
Paul Robert PASQUIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Curtis W. TARR et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 30934.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 4, 1971.
John W. Reed, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Morton Hollander, Robert E. Kopp, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellees.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Robert Pasquier, eligible for the draft and previously the beneficiary of a Class II-S student deferment, sought pre-induction judicial review of his local board’s denial of a Class III-A fatherhood deferment under applicable Selective Service Regulations. The District Court, 318 F.Supp. 1350, dismissed his claim for injunctive and declaratory relief after holding that the denial was lawful and that the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 precluded judicial review. We affirm.
One of appellant’s principal claims on this appeal asserted that he was entitled to the res judicata effects of a judgment in the earlier class action of Gregory v. Hershey, E.D.Mich., 1969, 311 F.Supp. 1. There the District Court found invalid the withholding of the fatherhood deferment to those registrants, otherwise qualified, whose induction had previously been deferred for graduate — as opposed to undergraduate — study. However, that judgment collapsed, both for the parties and the members of the class, following its reversal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Gregory v. Tarr, 6 Cir., 1971, 436 F.2d 513.
We follow Gregory and hold that pre-induction relief was properly denied.
Affirmed.
. 32 C.F.R. 1622.30(a) provides:
(a) In Class III-A shall be placed any registrant who has a child or children with whom he maintains a bona fide family relationship in their home and who is not a physician, dentist or veterinarian, or who is not in an allied specialist category which may be announced by the Director of Selective Service after being advised by the Secretary of Defense that a special requisition under authority of section 1631.4 of these regulations will be issued by the delivery of registrants in such category, except that a registrant who is classified in Class II-S after the date of enactment of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 shall not be eligible for classification in Class III-A under the provisions of this paragraph.
. Section 10(b) (3) of the Act, 50 U.S. C.A.App. 460(b) (3) provides in part:
No judicial review shall be made of the classification or processing of any registrant by local boards, appeal boards, or the President, except as a defense to a criminal prosecution instituted under section 12 of this title [section 462 of this Appendix], after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction * * *.

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