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:
Howard Oren ADKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16972.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1962.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, through appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to an information in two counts charging him with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 472, (1) in uttering a counterfeited Federal Reserve Note, and (2) in possessing and concealing five other counterfeited Federal Reserve Notes. He was convicted on his plea and was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Thereafter he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to have the sentences vacated on the grounds (1) that the court failed to determine that the plea was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge; (2) that there was no evidence before the court to show that the crimes had been committed; and (3) that he had been improperly held in the city jail at St. Louis, Missouri, for 65 hours prior to being taken before a United States Commissioner. The court denied the motion without a hearing.
The transcripts of the arraignment proceeding and of the sentencing proceeding are both contained in the files and records. They clearly demonstrate that the entry of a plea of guilty in appellant’s behalf by his counsel was with voluntariness on the part of appellant and with understanding by him of the nature of the charge. Among other things, the transcripts show that appellant had had an almost continuous history of criminal charges, convictions and sentences against him since 1947. He was experienced in the entry of pleas of guilty. In this situation, the statement of his counsel that appellant had been' advised of the nature of the charges against him and of his rights , in relation thereto manifestly was not mere jargon to him. There was persuasive basis for the court to resolve at the time that the plea of guilty was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.
As a matter of fact, appellant’s contention here appears not so much to be that his plea had not been made voluntarily and with understanding of the nature of the charge, but rather that his conviction was legally invalid because the court failed to make a formal finding and recitation at the time that it was satisfied this was the fact.
The provision of Rule 11, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., that, on a plea of guilty being made, the court "shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge”, imposes on the court the responsibility of making certain that these conditions exist, but there is no requirement that the court must enter a formal finding or recitation to this effect.
As to appellant’s second and third contentions, these are without substance for collateral attack upon his sentence. A plea of guilty is an admission of all the essential elements of an information or indictment so that no other proof on the part of the Government is necessary for a judgment of conviction. Harris v. United States, 8 Cir., 288 F.2d 790; Bartholomew v. United States, 8 Cir., 286 F.2d 779; Heideman v. United States, 8 Cir., 281 F.2d 805. Again, delay in taking a prisoner before a Commissioner is not a basis for collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction. Further, when a prisoner pleads guilty to an offense, he thereby waives the significance of any irregularities in his arrest and previous restraint.
To clear the records of the appeal pending from appellant’s notice of appeal, the case will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee, and it will thereupon be dismissed as frivolous.
Appeal dismissed.

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