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:
In re GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS OF the CERRO MARAVILLA EVENTS. SPECIAL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 85-1768.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 1986.
Decided Feb. 13, 1986.
Patricio Martinez-Lorenzo for petitioner, appellant Sp. Independent Pros.
Frank D. Allen, Jr., Civil Rights Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Walter W. Barnett, Civil Rights Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., Daniel F. Lopez Romo, U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., and William Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., were on brief for appellee.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BREYER and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico appointed the appellant, the Special Independent Prosecutor, to investigate possible crimes arising out of the shooting deaths of two persons arrested as terrorists at Cerro Maravilla. The Special Prosecutor asked the federal district court to release the transcripts of three federal grand jury proceedings connected with the Cerro Maravilla events. The district court denied the requests on the ground that the prosecutor had not made a showing of “particularized need,” which Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) requires as a condition to a breach of the general rule of grand jury secrecy. United, States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 444, 103 S.Ct. 3133, 3148, 77 L.Ed.2d 743 (1983); Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U.S. 557, 566-67, 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1360-61, 75 L.Ed.2d 281 (1983); Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222-23, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674-75, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979). The Special Prosecutor appeals from the denial.
At oral argument we learned two significant additional facts. First, the Special Prosecutor apparently agrees that his request for grand jury access can be supported with more specific, detailed reasons —that, in effect, his presentation may have been too broad and general to have allowed the district court to weigh properly his particular needs against the need for continued secrecy. The Special Prosecutor has stated that he intends to file another request for access, this time specifying in significantly greater detail precisely what he needs and exactly why he needs it. Second, the United States Department of Justice has noted that it will be willing to consider such requests as the Special Prosecutor may address to it for access. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(C)(iv). (“Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made — ... when permitted by a court at the request of an attorney for the government, upon a showing that such matters may disclose a violation of state criminal law, to an appropriate official of a state or subdivision of a state for the purpose of enforcing such law.”). The Department adds that it will “join him in requesting appropriate court orders to release these transcripts” if the prosecutor “furnishes fair suspicion, that an injustice would be done in any of the local proceedings for which [the Special Prosecutor] is responsible.”
Consequently, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Special Prosecutor’s request. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the prosecutor making a more specific, detailed and particularized “access” request and is also without prejudice to any request the Justice Department may wish to make under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(iv).
Affirmed.

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: 52