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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Calvin WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 289, Docket 27665.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1964.
Decided March 9, 1964.
Daniel H. Brown, Legal Aid Society, New York City, for appellant.
Robert J. McGuire, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., and James M. Brachman, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to reverse a conviction for possessing goods stolen from interstate commerce, knowing them to be stolen, and for conspiracy related thereto, 18 U.S.C. § 659 and § 371, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Edward J. Dimock, District Judge. Appellant claims that the evidence on which his arrest and conviction were based was the fruit of an unconstitutional search and seizure. Agents acting on a tip from a reliable informant as to a stolen goods drop, staked out a floor in an office building on which floor two co-defendants of Williams had rented a room. The two, with Williams, who was known to agents as a truckman, came to the floor with a carton and the other two entered the room, leaving the door open. The agents entered, observed from markings on the carton that it had been moving in interstate commerce consigned to J. C. Penney Co. in Mississippi, asked for proof of ownership and receiving a negative response arrested the men in the room (none of whom was the appellant).
Putting to one side the issue raised by the government of Williams’ standing to raise the question of illegal search, we find no error in the court’s determination that the search, if it be termed such, and arrest of the co-defendants were not illegal. The premises were open to the public, the office door marked with “J & B Jobbers” was open, compare United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 64, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950), the stolen - goods identifiable as such by observation of the carton markings within plain sight. Probable cause existing for the arrest, the search of the carton and seizure of the stolen goods was justified. United States v. Rabinowitz, supra,; Ellison v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 206 F.2d 476 (1953).
The court commends the diligent and thorough presentation of appellant’s case by Daniel H. Brown, appointed counsel.

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