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:
Shirley Shueh-Lan CHEN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 19509.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1969.
Jan D. Stuurmans, Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West & Halladay, Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner; briefs and motion in opposition to motion to dismiss was filed by Bernard P. Becker, Smith & Munro, Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Paul C. Summitt, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Criminal Division, Administrative Regulations Section, Washington, D. C., for respondent; Will Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jerome M. Feit, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on the brief. Motion to dismiss was filed by Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge and LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented by the Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is whether 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a(c) divests this court of jurisdiction to review a deportation order, administratively final, in a situation where the petitioner has voluntarily departed from this country subsequent to the filing of a timely petition for review.
The petitioner, Miss Chen, a citizen of Taiwan, Republic of China, was admitted to the United States on September 17, 1967, on nonimmigrant-student visa expiring on September 17, 1968. An order for her deportation, under 8 U.S. C.A. § 1251(a) on the ground that she was excludable at the time of entry under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a) (3), as an alien who had one or more attacks of insanity, became administratively final when the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal on August 20, 1968.
Petition for review of the deportation order was filed on October 31, 1968. On November 1, 1968, deportation was stayed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a (a) (3) pending determination of the petition for review. Upon oral argument on September 11,. 1969, counsel for petitioner conceded that petitioner had voluntarily left the United States on or about May 22, 1969, and that she has remained outside of the United States up to the present time.
Federal courts below the Supreme Court level have only such jurisdiction as is given them by Congress. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 376, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329; Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 512-514, 74 U.S. 506, 512-514, 19 L.Ed. 264; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 440, 448-449, 49 U.S. 440, 448-449, 12 L.Ed. 1147; Wallach v. City of Pagedale, 8 Cir., 376 F.2d 671, 675. The Power of Congress to confer jurisdiction carries with it the power to remove jurisdiction.
Petitioner contends that once jurisdiction of a United States court attaches, a subsequent change in condition of the parties will not oust jurisdiction. In support Morgan’s Heirs v. Morgan, 2 Wheat. 290, 297, 15 U.S. 290, 297, 4 L. Ed. 242 (change of residence in diversity case) and Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198, 56 U.S. 198,14 L.Ed. 660 (change in jurisdictional amount) and similar cases are cited. Such cases do not turn on the lack of power of Congress to take away acquired jurisdiction but upon a' failure of Congress to make the changed standards effective as to pending cases.
The dispositive issue on the motion before us is a determination on whether Congress has expressed an intention in the controlling statute, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a (c), to take away review jurisdiction in deportation cases where the departure from the country occurred after a deportation review proceedings had been commenced. The answer must be found in the interpretation of § 1105a(c), which in pertinent part reads:
“An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him as of right under the immigration laws and regulations or if he has departed from the United States after the issuance of the order. * * * ”
The statute in our view is clear and unambiguous and plainly states that an order of deportation shall not be reviewed if the deportee has departed from the United States.
Eight U.S.C.A. § 1101(g) provides:
“For the purposes of this chapter any alien ordered deported (whether before or after the enactment of this chapter) who has left the United States, shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law, * * * ”
In Mrvica v. Esperdy, 376 U.S. 560, 565 n. 5, 84 S.Ct. 833, 836, 11 L.Ed.2d 911, the Court states:
“Indeed, discussion of the manner of the petitioner’s departure seems beside the point in view of his concession that his departure executed the warrant for his deportation. (If by his departure he managed to execute the warrant for his deportation but nevertheless remain undeported, he was able to improve his status by leaving the country. The suggestion is untenable.)”
Moreover, any permission granted petitioner to reside in this country has expired by the terms of the visa granted. Her voluntary departure has eliminated any possibility or need for deporting her for staying beyond the period permitted by her visa.
Regardless of what the proper decision on the merits of the petition for review might be, petitioner as an alien cannot reenter the United States without complying with the entry provisions of the immigration laws.
The Government’s motion to dismiss the petition for review is granted; the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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