What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the state or territory in which the case was first heard. If the case began in the federal district court, consider the state of that district court. If it is a habeas corpus case, consider the state of the state court that first heard the case. If the case originated in a federal administrative agency, answer "not applicable". Answer with the name of the state, or one of the following territories: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, or "not applicable" or "not determined".

Opinion:
EARWOOD v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8248.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 2, 1937.
See, also, (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 557.
Wm. T. Townsend, of Cartersville, Ga., and Thomas Howell Scott, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh, Julius C. Martin, and Wilbur C. Pickett, Attys., Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., and Slaton Clemmons, Atty., Department of Justice, Lawrence S. Camp, U. S. Atty., and A. Sidney Camp, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit brought by the guardian of an insane person to recover on a policy of war risk insurance, issued to him while serving as a soldier in the armies of the United .States, on the ground that the policy matured through his becoming totally and permanently disabled because of insanity. Error is assigned to the direction of a verdict- for defendant.
The policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums on August 31, 19.19. Demand for payment of installments under the policy was not made until February 26, 1925, more than five years after the policy lapsed. Payment was refused on April 23, 1925. Suit was not brought on the policy until July 3, 1931, nearly six years thereafter. It would serve no good purpose to extensively review the evidence. It tended to show that after his return from the army the insured was nervous and irritable, contrary to his usual demeanor before he was inducted into service. However, he had no medical treatment for his mental condition until long after the policy lapsed, and was able to pursue his previous vocation as a farmer to some extent. We agree with the District Court that appellant did not sustain the burden of proving with reasonable certainty that the insured became totally and permanently disabled so as to mature the policy before payment of premiums ceased. Lumbra v. U. S., 290 U.S. 551, 54 S.Ct. 272, 78 L.Ed. 492; U. S. v. Spaulding, 293 U.S. 498, 55 S.Ct. 273, 79 L.Ed. 617; Miller v. U. S., 294 U.S. 435, 55 S.Ct. 440, 79 L.Ed. 977.
The record presents no reversible error.
Affirmed.

Question: In what state or territory was the case first heard?

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: 10