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:
Kelly MOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. W. THOMAS, W. L. (Bill) Moore, William S. Larkins, Dorris L. Robertson, and Bymal Haywood Dixon, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14624.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 6, 1962.
Kelly Moss, in pro. per.
Joe Nagle, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Troy Savage, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry 0. Whit-low, Waller, Threlkeld, Whitlow & Byrd, Paducah, Ky., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WEICK, Circuit Judge, and BOYD and THORNTON, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an adverse jury verdict and judgment in a tort action wherein appellant charged a violation of his civil rights while incarcerated as a prisoner in the Kentucky State Penitentiary. The trial judge, upon motion by appellant, permitted this appeal in forma pauperis (Title 28, § 1915(a), U.S.C.A.), but declined to authorize the preparation of a transcript of the trial proceedings at government expense, ruling there was no necessity for such since the appeal was frivolous and presented no substantial question.
The appellant in his inept presentation of this appeal challenges the regularity of the trial court proceedings and the order denying him a transcript of the “proceedings” at government expense. He asks this Court to override the trial judge by ordering a transcript of the proceedings below be prepared at government expense in order that this Court might review same in search of possible errors.
This Court dealt with the identical problem here presented in King v. Carmichal, C.A. 6th, 1959, 268 F.2d 305, cert, denied 361 U.S. 968, 80 S.Ct. 597, 4 L.Ed.2d 548, holding in effect that the regularity of the proceedings below can not be questioned on appeal and the transcript printed at government expense without a certificate from the trial judge certifying that the appeal is not frivolous, but presents a substantial question. We adhere to the principle announced in this case.
Two days before the hearing of the appeal in this Court appellant moved for the appointment of counsel to represent him. His regularly retained counsel at the trial below withdrew following the jury’s verdict. In the circumstances of this case we find no merit in appellant’s request in this regard.
While in contrast to a criminal proceeding in which there is a duty upon the Court to assign counsel to represent an indigent defendant, a court in a civil case with respect to the appointment of counsel is endowed with discretion. Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d); Reid v. Charney, et al., C.A. 6th, 1956, 235 F.2d 47.
The appeal is 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