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:
J. M. YOUNG, Appellant, v. ETHYL CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 80-1589.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1980.
Chambers & Chambers by Melvin T. Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Magnolia, Ark., Robert J. Moffatt, Shreveport, La., for appellant.
Baker & Botts by Robt. Malinak, Houston, Tex., Anderson & Crumpler by Paul C. Crumpler, Magnolia, Ark., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, ROSS and McMILLI-AN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
August 8, 1978, this court, upon consideration of appeals Nos. 77-1807 and 77-1829, which were appeals from district court orders in the instant case, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. September 8,1978, this court denied the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Young v. Ethyl Corp., 581 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979). Upon remand plaintiff J. M. Young filed a motion to vacate, it was denied by the district court June 2, 1980, and plaintiff brought the instant appeal.
Because of our concern that the order appealed from did not deal with the issue of prejudgment and post-judgment interest which was to be determined on remand, this court by order of October 24, 1980, directed the parties to show cause, if any, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure of the order to dispose of all parties and issues as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The response of plaintiff-appellant J. M. Young is but another attempt to relitigate the original suit and a collection of general principles of appellate review. It does not address the failure of the June 2, 1980 district court order to dispose of all issues. Nor does it present any basis for an interlocutory appeal. Having considered the letter brief, this court holds that the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed for lack of a final judgment below.
It is so ordered.

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: 4