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:
STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents.
No. 83-4542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 23, 1984.
Walter Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for petitioner.
H. Glenn Scammel, John J. Powers, III, John P. Fonte, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Hugh L. McCulley, Houston, Tex., for intervenor Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Before RUBIN, JOHNSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
Southern Pacific Transportation Company filed an - amendment to a contract for transporting limestone within the State of Texas with the Texas Railroad Commission. It also filed a contract summary containing the information required by the ICC rules. The contract summary, which is available to the public, did not disclose the exact rates charged by Southern Pacific or the origin and destination of all movements. The contract contained the full terms of Southern Pacific’s agreement with the limestone shippers, but this document was confidential. The Railroad Commission rejected the contract summary because it did not include all “essential terms of the contract,” basing its action on the same interpretation of the Act adopted by the state’s Rail Rate Board in a case involving a contract filed by Burlington Northern Railroad Company, decided by us today. State of Texas v. United States, 730 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.1984) (Burlington Northern).
Southern Pacific filed a petition with the ICC seeking reversal of the Railroad Commission decision, in accordance with the statutory procedure. The ICC granted Southern Pacific’s petition, finding that the Railroad Commission’s rejection violated federal standards and procedures. Texas then sought judicial review.
Texas challenges the ICC action on essentially the same grounds considered by us in Parts V and VI of our opinion in Burlington Northern. It also challenges the ICC’s exclusion of origins and destinations from the “essential terms” required to be included in the contract summary.
The ICC asserts that we lack jurisdiction over this petition insofar as it challenges the substantive validity of the ICC’s contract rate rules. We rejected this contention in Part IV of Burlington Northern.
While, therefore, we take jurisdiction of this petition, for the reasons stated in Burlington Northern, we DENY it.
. 49 U.S.C. § 10713(b) (Supp. V 1981).
. 49 U.S.C. § 11501(c) (Supp. V 1981).

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: 43