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:
Donald E. AULT, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles J. HOLMES, Individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Defendants-Appellants. John Brenton PRESTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry E. COWAN, Warden Kentucky State Penitentiary, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 73-2049 and 73-2208.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1974.
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen. of Kentucky, Kenneth A. Howe, Jr., Bruce K. Davis, Legal Counsel, Bureau of Corrections, Dept, of Justice, Frankfort, Ky., for defendants-appellants in No. 73-2049.
Robert Plotkin, N.L.A.D.A., Washington, D.C., Robert E. Delahanty, Elizabeth M. Freedman, Louisville, Ky., Allen M. Ressler, Legal Aid and Defender Society, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff-appellee in No. 73-2049.
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen. of Kentucky, Robert L. Chenoweth, Bruce K. Davis, Frankfort, Ky., for defendants-appellants in No. 73-2208.
Robert A. Sedler, Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee in No. 73-2208.
Jack Greenberg, Stanley A. Bass, New York City, for amici curiae.
Before EDWARDS, McCREE and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
EDWARDS, Circuit Judge.
These two cases, which were consolidated for hearing, presented the same basic problems, namely, whether or not prisoners in Kentucky’s penal system have a due process right to a hearing before they are transferred out of the state to continue service of their penal term in the penitentiary systems of other states, and if so, what sort of hearing is required.
The cases were heard before Judge Charles Allen in Louisville, who entered thoughtful opinions finding due process violations in defendants’ denial of any hearing (absent an “emergency” situation), and spelling out what defendants had to do at the due process hearing he required.
At appellate hearing counsel for the Department of Corrections agreed that some form of due process hearing was required before such a transfer took place. Defendants’ opposition to Judge Allen’s order centered primarily upon his requirement of “an impartial” board and his holding that the prisoner had a right to be represented by a lay advocate and that he had the right to call and examine witnesses.
Subsequent to appellate hearing of these cases (and, of course, subsequent to Judge Allen’s decision), two developments have taken place which have required our consideration. First, the attention of this court was called to the well-considered opinion of Judge Goldberg for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, concerning somewhat similar eases involving prisoner complaints about disciplinary procedures. See Sands v. Wainwright, 491 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1973). In all four of the cases there concerned the Fifth Circuit held it was deprived of jurisdiction by the three-judge court requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1970).
Since the Sands case had not been considered by the District Judge in our instant cases, nor briefed or argued before our panel, we required additional briefing concerning the jurisdiction of our court. Both briefs received distinguish the Sands case and our instant cases by pointing out that in our cases plaintiffs-appellees do not attack any state statute or any state regulation adopted by an administrative board or commission as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1970). The brief for the State of Kentucky states in this regard:
“[PJlaintiffs-appellees have challenged the constitutionality of unwritten procedures used in implementing a statute that is constitutional on its face. The procedures, or lack of them, complained of are not set forth in any formally adopted regulation or order. At most they represent the Kentucky Department of Corrections’ informally established procedural policies with regard to interstate transfer of prisoners. ' The statute involved here, KRS 196.610, does not foreclose the procedural safeguards which the plaintiffs-appellees requested and, in short, no state regulations speak to the subject at all. Plaintiffs-appellees’ success or failure in these actions will have and have had no effect upon the present statutory framework underpinning the operations of the Kentucky Department of Corrections in this area. At the most, these two cases will have the effect of requiring the Kentucky Department of Corrections to spell out the procedures required to comport to constitutional principles. Having in view the principle that Section 2281 is to be closely construed to the end that only those cases which plainly fall in the class therein described be referred to three-judge courts, we respectfully state that informally adopted procedural policies and practices of the kind involved in these two cases at bar concerning interstate transfer of prisoners, although applied statewide, are not embraced within Section 2281, and that however substantial the federal questions in these two cases at bar may be, a district court of three judges, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, would not have jurisdiction to consider these claims.” (Emphasis in original.)
On the facts in this case, we conclude that the District Judge had jurisdiction (as opposed to any three-judge court requirement) and that as a consequence, we do. 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1970) provides:
“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.” Id.
Clearly in our cases plaintiffs-appellees do not attack “any State statute” or any “order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes.” Indeed, the unwritten and informal administrative policies herein involved do not even appear to be of statewide application, since they appear to affect only two of seven institutions. These facts serve to distinguish our cases from those involved in Sands v. Wainwright, supra.
Strongly influencing our decision in this regard is the description of the three-judge court statute set forth in Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246, 251, 61 S.Ct. 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800 (1941), wherein the Supreme Court termed this measure “an enactment technical in the strict sense of the term and to be applied as such.” (Emphasis added). See also Ex parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354, 361, 60 S.Ct. 947, 84 L.Ed. 1249 (1940).
We also note the footnote in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), states: “Since no statewide regulation was involved [in the Wolff case] there was no need to convene a three-judge court. See Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project, 404 U.S. 541, [92 S.Ct. 652, 30 L.Ed.2d 697] (1972).” Wolff v. McDonnell, supra at 542 n. 1, 94 S.Ct. at 2968. Additionally we note that a case of recent date involving very similar facts to those of our instant cases, Gomes v. Travisono, 490 F.2d 1209 (1st Cir. 1974), has now been remanded to the First Circuit “for further consideration in light of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 [94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935] (1974),” Travisono v. Gomes, 418 U.S. 909, 94 S.Ct. 3200, 3201, 41 L.Ed.2d 1155 (1974) — a disposition which clearly assumes that the district and appellate courts had jurisdiction.
The decision of Wolff v. McDonnell is, of course, the second significant development since the District Judge decided our instant cases. In Wolff the majority of the Supreme Court has not only decided that due process required a hearing on serious disciplinary proceedings in prison, but has spelled out the limited nature of such a hearing. It is clear that the District Judge has found that Kentucky was employing interstate transfers for such serious disciplinary matters.
Since the District Judge had no opportunity to phrase his orders pertaining to the nature of the hearing required in accordance with the Wolff standards, we now vacate that portion of his order and remand these cases to that court for reconsideration in the light of Wolff v. McDonnell, supra.
We also require that he amend his order pertaining to the return of prisoners for purposes of court proceedings to limit such mandatory returns to instances wherein a court has entered an order for the prisoner’s return.
In other respects the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. Judge Allen found that due process required a hearing because interstate transfers might adversely affect plaintiffs’ chances for parole, would make visits of family and friends more difficult, and would require complete new adjustment to a different institution.

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: 17