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:
Union Norman BETHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants, Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner, individually; J.J. Brown, etc., individually; Lewis S. Livings, etc., individually; and Joel E. Aills, etc., individually, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 83-5727.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 18, 1984.
Kevin X. Crowley, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Dept, of Natural Resources, Bruce Barkett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.
Leslie M. Kannan and Lisa Hemmer, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., Leanne J. Frank, Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi, P.A., Miami, Fla., David Paul Horan, Key West, Fla., for amicus curiae, Secretary of Commerce.
Joshua M. Morse, III, Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tallahassee, Fla., for amicus curiae, Organized Fishermen of Fla., Inc.
Before TJOFLAT and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS , District Judge.
Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In July 1982, Bethell was arrested eight miles beyond Florida territorial boundaries by Florida agents and charged with a violation of Fla.Stat. § 370.1105(2) (1983), which prohibits the possession of fish traps and the taking of finfish with fish traps. Bet-hell filed this civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), seeking a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional as applied outside the boundaries of the state, preliminary and permanent injunctions against its extraterritorial application, and damages. The district court granted Bet-hell summary judgment regarding the constitutionality of the statute, and issued a permanent injunction against its application outside Florida boundaries. The court reserved ruling on the issue of damages. The State appeals; we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1982) (allowing interlocutory appeal from an order granting an injunction).
Since the State’s appeal, the Florida Supreme Court has construed section 370.-1105(2), under which Bethell was arrested, and determined that it does not apply outside the territorial boundaries of the state. Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we no longer have a live controversy before us on this issue. We thus are obliged to vacate the district court’s order granting injunc-tive relief and to remand the case for disposition of any remaining claims. See Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 201-02, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969) (vacating judgment and remanding case which had “lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.”)
VACATED and REMANDED.

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: 9