What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. 

Keith THARPE
v.
Eric SELLERS, Warden.
No. 17-6075.
Supreme Court of the United States
Jan. 8, 2018.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Keith Tharpe moved to reopen his federal habeas corpus proceedings regarding his claim that the Georgia jury that convicted him of murder included a white juror, Barney Gattie, who was biased against Tharpe because he is black. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6). The District Court denied the motion on the ground that, among other things, Tharpe's claim was procedurally defaulted in state court. The District Court also noted that Tharpe could not overcome that procedural default because he had failed to produce any clear and convincing evidence contradicting the state court's determination that Gattie's presence on the jury did not prejudice him. See Tharpe v. Warden, No. 5:10-cv-433 (MD Ga., Sept. 5, 2017), App. B to Pet. for Cert. 19.
Tharpe sought a certificate of appealability (COA). The Eleventh Circuit denied his COA application after deciding that jurists of reason could not dispute that the District Court's procedural ruling was correct. See Tharpe v. Warden, 2017 WL 4250413, *3 (C.A.11, Sept. 21, 2017). The Eleventh Circuit's decision, as we read it, was based solely on its conclusion, rooted in the state court's factfinding, that Tharpe had failed to show prejudice in connection with his procedurally defaulted claim, i.e., that Tharpe had "failed to demonstrate that Barney Gattie's behavior 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.' " Ibid. (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) ).
Our review of the record compels a different conclusion. The state court's prejudice determination rested on its finding that Gattie's vote to impose the death penalty was not based on Tharpe's race. See Tharpe v. Warden, No. 93-cv-144 (Super. Ct. Butts Cty., Ga., Dec. 1, 2008), App. F to Pet. for Cert. 102. And that factual determination is binding on federal courts, including this Court, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Here, however, Tharpe produced a sworn affidavit, signed by Gattie, indicating Gattie's view that "there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers"; that Tharpe, "who wasn't in the 'good' black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did"; that "[s]ome of the jurors voted for death because they felt Tharpe should be an example to other blacks who kill blacks, but that wasn't my reason"; and that, "[a]fter studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls." App. B to Pet. for Cert. 15-16 (internal quotation marks omitted). Gattie's remarkable affidavit-which he never retracted-presents a strong factual basis for the argument that Tharpe's race affected Gattie's vote for a death verdict. At the very least, jurists of reason could debate whether Tharpe has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the state court's factual determination was wrong. The Eleventh Circuit erred when it concluded otherwise.
The question of prejudice-the ground on which the Eleventh Circuit chose to dispose of Tharpe's application-is not the only question relevant to the broader inquiry whether Tharpe should receive a COA. The District Court denied Tharpe's Rule 60(b) motion on several grounds not addressed by the Eleventh Circuit. We express no view of those issues here. In light of the standard for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), which is available only in " 'extraordinary circumstances,' " Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), Tharpe faces a high bar in showing that jurists of reason could disagree whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion. It may be that, at the end of the day, Tharpe should not receive a COA. And review of the denial of a COA is certainly not limited to grounds expressly addressed by the court whose decision is under review. But on the unusual facts of this case, the Court of Appeals' review should not have rested on the ground that it was indisputable among reasonable jurists that Gattie's service on the jury did not prejudice Tharpe.
We therefore grant Tharpe's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further consideration of the question whether Tharpe is entitled to a COA.
It is so ordered.
If bad facts make bad law, then "unusual facts" inspire unusual decisions. Ante, at 548. In its brief per curiam opinion, the Court misreads a lower court's opinion to find an error that is not there, and then refuses to entertain alternative grounds for affirmance. The Court does this to accomplish little more than a do-over in the Court of Appeals: As it concedes, petitioner Keith Tharpe faces a "high bar" on remand to obtain even a certificate of appealability (COA). Ante, at 547.
One might wonder why the Court engages in this pointless exercise. The only possible explanation is its concern with the "unusual facts" of this case, specifically a juror affidavit that expresses racist opinions about blacks. The opinions in the affidavit are certainly odious. But their odiousness does not excuse us from doing our job correctly, or allow us to pretend that the lower courts have not done theirs.
The responsibility of courts is to decide cases, both usual and unusual, by neutrally applying the law. The law reflects society's considered judgments about the balance of competing interests, and we must respect those judgments. In bending the rules here to show its concern for a black capital inmate, the Court must think it is showing its concern for racial justice. It is not. Its summary vacatur will not stop Tharpe's execution or erase the "unusual fac[t]" of the affidavit. It will only delay justice for Jaquelin Freeman, who was also black, who is ignored by the majority, and who was murdered by Tharpe 27 years ago. I respectfully dissent.
I
The Court's terse opinion tells the reader that this case involves a petitioner, a juror, an affidavit, and a prejudice determination. But it involves much more than that. This case also has a victim, a second affidavit, numerous depositions, factfinding by a state court, and several decisions from federal judges that provide multiple grounds for denying a COA. I will briefly provide this omitted context.
A
Keith Tharpe's wife, Migrisus, left him in 1990. Despite a no-contact order, Tharpe called her and told her that if she wanted to " 'play dirty' " he would show her " 'what dirty was.' " Tharpe v. Warden, 834 F.3d 1323, 1325 (C.A.11 2016). The next morning, Tharpe ambushed his wife and her sister, Jaquelin Freeman, as they drove to work, pulling his truck in front of their car and forcing them to stop. Tharpe aimed a shotgun at the car and ordered his wife to get into his truck. He then told Freeman that he was going to " 'f-[her] up' " and took her to the rear of his truck. Ibid. Tharpe shot Freeman, rolled her body into a ditch, reloaded, and shot her again, killing her. After murdering Freeman, Tharpe kidnaped and raped his wife, leaving Freeman's body lying in the ditch. Freeman's husband found her a short time later, while driving their children to school.
A jury convicted Tharpe of malice murder and two counts of aggravated kidnaping. After hearing the evidence, the jury needed less than two hours to return a unanimous sentence of death. As aggravating factors, the jury found that Tharpe murdered Freeman while committing two other capital felonies-the aggravated kidnapings of his wife and Freeman-and that the murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman.
B
More than seven years after his trial, Tharpe's lawyers interviewed one of his jurors, Barney Gattie. The resulting affidavit stated that Gattie knew Freeman, and that her family was "what [he] would call a nice [b]lack family." Tharpe v. Warden, No. 5:10-cv-433 (MD Ga., Sept. 5, 2017), App. B to Pet. for Cert. 15. The affidavit continued that, in Gattie's view, "there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers." Ibid. Tharpe "wasn't in the 'good' black folks category," according to the affidavit, and if Freeman had been "the type Tharpe is, then picking between life and death for Tharpe wouldn't have mattered so much." Id., at 16. But because Freeman and her family were "good black folks," the affidavit continued, Gattie thought Tharpe "should get the electric chair for what he did." Ibid. Gattie's affidavit went on to explain that "[a]fter studying the Bible," he had "wondered if black people even have souls." Ibid. The affidavit also noted that some of the other jurors "wanted blacks to know they weren't going to get away with killing each other." Ibid.
A couple of days later, the State obtained another affidavit from Gattie. In that second affidavit, Gattie stated that he "did not vote to impose the death penalty because [Tharpe] was a black man," but instead because the evidence presented at trial justified it and because Tharpe showed no remorse. Record in No. 5:10-cv-433 (MD Ga., June 21, 2017) (Record), Doc. 77-3, p. 2. The affidavit explained that Gattie had consumed "seven or more beers" on the afternoon he signed the first affidavit. Ibid. Although he had signed it, he "never swore to [it] nor was [he] ever asked if [the] statement was true and accurate." Id., at 3. He also attested that many of the statements in the first affidavit "were taken out of context and simply not accurate." Ibid. And he felt that the lawyers who took it "were deceiving and misrepresented what they stood for." Id., at 5.
A state postconviction court presided over Gattie's deposition. Gattie again testified that, although he signed the affidavit, he did not swear to its contents. Gattie also testified that when he signed the affidavit he had consumed "[m]aybe a 12 pack, [and] a few drinks of whiskey, over the period of the day." Id ., Doc. 15-8, p. 80. Tharpe's lawyers did not question Gattie about the contents of his first affidavit at the deposition. They instead spent much of the deposition asking Gattie unrelated questions about race, which the state court ruled irrelevant-like whether he was familiar with Uncle Tom's Cabin or whether his granddaughter would play with a black doll. The lawyers' failure to address the contents of Gattie's first affidavit troubled the state court. Just before it permitted Gattie to leave, the court advised Tharpe's lawyers that it might "totally discoun[t]" Gattie's first affidavit, and it again invited them to ask Gattie questions about its contents. Id., at 105. Tharpe's lawyers declined the opportunity.
The state court also heard deposition testimony from ten of Tharpe's other jurors and received an affidavit from the eleventh. None of the jurors, two of whom were black, corroborated the statements in Gattie's first affidavit about how some of the jurors had considered race. The ten jurors who testified all said that race played no role in the jury's deliberations. The eleventh juror did not mention any consideration of race either.
C
Tharpe sought state postconviction relief. One of his claims was that "improper racial animus ... infected the deliberations of the jury." Tharpe v. Warden, 2017 WL 4250413, *1 (C.A.11, Sept. 21, 2017).
The state court rejected this claim for two reasons. First, Tharpe could not prove juror misconduct because Georgia law did not allow parties to impeach a jury verdict with post-trial testimony from jurors. Tharpe v. Warden, No. 93-cv-144 (Super. Ct. Butts Cty., Ga., Dec. 1, 2008), App. F to Pet. for Cert. 99-101. Second, Tharpe had procedurally defaulted his claim because he had failed to raise it on direct appeal, and he could not establish cause and prejudice to overcome that default. Id., at 102. Tharpe's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel was insufficient to establish cause because he had "failed to establish the requisite deficiency or prejudice." Ibid. And Tharpe failed to establish prejudice because the state court credited Gattie's testimony that he had not relied on race when voting to sentence Tharpe. Id., at 102-103.
D
Tharpe then raised his juror-bias claim in a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied his claim as procedurally defaulted. The District Court acknowledged that ineffective assistance of counsel can provide cause to overcome a procedural default, but it explained that Tharpe "fail[ed] to provide any details regarding this allegation." 2017 WL 4250413, *2. The District Court concluded that Tharpe "ha[d] not established that his counsels' ineffectiveness constituted cause to overcome the procedural defaul[t]" and that he "failed to show actual prejudice." Ibid.
Tharpe did not seek a COA on his juror-bias claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, Tharpe, 834 F.3d 1323, and this Court denied certiorari, Tharpe v. Sellers, 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2298, 198 L.Ed.2d 732 (2017).
In June 2017, Tharpe moved to reopen his federal habeas proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He pointed to this Court's recent decisions in Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 759, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017), and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 855, 197 L.Ed.2d 107 (2017), as extraordinary circumstances that entitled him to relief. According to Tharpe, Buck established that extraordinary circumstances are present when a defendant was sentenced due to his race and new law provides an opportunity to consider the merits of his previously defaulted, race-based sentencing claim. Pena-Rodriguez supplied that new law, Tharpe argued, because it held that a state no-impeachment rule must yield when there is a "clear statement that indicates [a juror] relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant." 580 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 869.
The District Court denied Tharpe's motion. It first explained that Pena-Rodriguez announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. App. B to Pet. for Cert. 6-14. It alternatively deferred to the state court's finding that Tharpe could not prove cause or prejudice to overcome his procedural default. Id., at 18-21. After the depositions of Gattie and ten other jurors, the state court credited Gattie's testimony that he did not vote for death based on race. Id., at 21. The District Court deferred to that credibility determination, and nothing in Pena-Rodriguez undermined that determination. App. B to Pet. for Cert. 19-21.
The Eleventh Circuit denied a COA. It explained that the District Court had concluded in its first decision that Tharpe failed to prove cause and prejudice. 2017 WL 4250413, *2. The District Court had later rejected Tharpe's Rule 60(b) motion both because Pena-Rodriguez was not retroactively applicable on federal collateral review and because it "presumed the correctness" of the state court's finding that Tharpe failed to " 'establish cause and prejudice.' " 2017 WL 4250413, *2. The Eleventh Circuit then offered two reasons why Tharpe was not entitled to a COA. First, Tharpe had not " 'made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' " Id., at *3 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) ). "As the [state court] and the District Court found, Tharpe failed to demonstrate that Barney Gattie's behavior 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.' " 2017 WL 4250413, *3 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) ). "Nor," the Eleventh Circuit continued, "has Tharpe shown that 'jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' " 2017 WL 4250413, *3 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) ).
Shortly before his execution, Tharpe filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and a stay application with this Court. We issued a stay.
II
To obtain a COA, Tharpe must show "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id., at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. The Court is not willing to say that Tharpe can satisfy this standard. See ante, at 546 ("It may be that, at the end of the day, Tharpe should not receive a COA"). Instead, its opinion makes two moves. First, it "read[s]" the decision below as resting "solely" on Tharpe's "fail [ure] to show prejudice" to overcome his procedural default. Ante, at 545. It does not read the decision as reaching cause, and it declines to consider that or any other alternative reason to affirm the Eleventh Circuit. See ante, at 545 - 546. Second, the Court holds, contrary to the Eleventh Circuit, that jurists of reason could debate whether Tharpe has proven prejudice. See ante, at 546. Neither of the Court's moves is justified.
A
1
The majority misreads the decision below as resting "solely" on prejudice. See ante, at 545. The Eleventh Circuit addressed cause as well.
The Eleventh Circuit first held that Tharpe had failed to make a " 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,' " explaining that he had "failed to demonstrate that ... Gattie's behavior 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.' " 2017 WL 4250413, *3 (quoting Brecht, supra, at 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710 ). Then the Eleventh Circuit alternatively held that Tharpe had not "shown that 'jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' " 2017 WL 4250413, *3 (quoting Slack, supra, at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595 ). The "procedural ruling" of the District Court rested on both cause and prejudice-as the Eleventh Circuit explained earlier in its opinion, quoting the District Court at length. See 2017 WL 4250413, *2. Indeed, neither party suggests that the Eleventh Circuit's decision did not reach cause, and both parties briefed the issue to this Court. See Brief in Opposition 16-17; Reply Brief 7-8. The Court's reading of the decision below is untenable.
Even if its reading were tenable, the Court does not explain why the strong medicine of a summary disposition is warranted here. Summary decisions are "rare" and "usually reserved by this Court for situations in which ... the decision below is clearly in error." Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting). The majority's reading of the decision below is not the better one, much less the clearly correct one. By adopting the least charitable reading of the Eleventh Circuit's decision, the majority "disrespects the judges of the courts of appeals, who are appointed and confirmed as we are." Wellons v. Hall, 558 U.S. 220, 228, 130 S.Ct. 727, 175 L.Ed.

Question: What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed?
001. U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
002. U.S. Court of International Trade
003. U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
004. U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
005. U.S. Court of Military Review
006. U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
007. U.S. Customs Court
008. U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
009. U.S. Tax Court
010. Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
011. U.S. Court for China
012. U.S. Consular Courts
013. U.S. Commerce Court
014. Territorial Supreme Court
015. Territorial Appellate Court
016. Territorial Trial Court
017. Emergency Court of Appeals
018. Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
019. Bankruptcy Court
020. U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
021. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
022. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
023. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
024. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
025. U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
026. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
027. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
028. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
029. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
030. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
031. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
032. Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
033. Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
034. Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
035. Alaska U.S. District Court
036. Arizona U.S. District Court
037. Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
038. Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
039. California Central U.S. District Court
040. California Eastern U.S. District Court
041. California Northern U.S. District Court
042. California Southern U.S. District Court
043. Colorado U.S. District Court
044. Connecticut U.S. District Court
045. Delaware U.S. District Court
046. District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
047. Florida Middle U.S. District Court
048. Florida Northern U.S. District Court
049. Florida Southern U.S. District Court
050. Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
051. Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
052. Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
053. Guam U.S. District Court
054. Hawaii U.S. District Court
055. Idaho U.S. District Court
056. Illinois Central U.S. District Court
057. Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
058. Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
059. Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
060. Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
061. Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
062. Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
063. Kansas U.S. District Court
064. Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
065. Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
066. Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
067. Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
068. Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
069. Maine U.S. District Court
070. Maryland U.S. District Court
071. Massachusetts U.S. District Court
072. Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
073. Michigan Western U.S. District Court
074. Minnesota U.S. District Court
075. Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
076. Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
077. Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
078. Missouri Western U.S. District Court
079. Montana U.S. District Court
080. Nebraska U.S. District Court
081. Nevada U.S. District Court
082. New Hampshire U.S. District Court
083. New Jersey U.S. District Court
084. New Mexico U.S. District Court
085. New York Eastern U.S. District Court
086. New York Northern U.S. District Court
087. New York Southern U.S. District Court
088. New York Western U.S. District Court
089. North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
090. North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
091. North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
092. North Dakota U.S. District Court
093. Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
094. Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
095. Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
096. Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
097. Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
098. Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
099. Oregon U.S. District Court
100. Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
101. Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
102. Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
103. Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
104. Rhode Island U.S. District Court
105. South Carolina U.S. District Court
106. South Dakota U.S. District Court
107. Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
108. Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
109. Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
110. Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
111. Texas Northern U.S. District Court
112. Texas Southern U.S. District Court
113. Texas Western U.S. District Court
114. Utah U.S. District Court
115. Vermont U.S. District Court
116. Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
117. Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
118. Virginia Western U.S. District Court
119. Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
120. Washington Western U.S. District Court
121. West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
122. West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
123. Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
124. Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
125. Wyoming U.S. District Court
126. Louisiana U.S. District Court
127. Washington U.S. District Court
128. West Virginia U.S. District Court
129. Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
130. South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
131. South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
132. Alabama U.S. District Court
133. U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
134. Georgia U.S. District Court
135. Illinois U.S. District Court
136. Indiana U.S. District Court
137. Iowa U.S. District Court
138. Michigan U.S. District Court
139. Mississippi U.S. District Court
140. Missouri U.S. District Court
141. New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
142. New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
143. New York U.S. District Court
144. North Carolina U.S. District Court
145. Ohio U.S. District Court
146. Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
147. Tennessee U.S. District Court
148. Texas U.S. District Court
149. Virginia U.S. District Court
150. Norfolk U.S. District Court
151. Wisconsin U.S. District Court
152. Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
153. New Jersey U.S. District Court
154. California U.S. District Court
155. Florida U.S. District Court
156. Arkansas U.S. District Court
157. District of Orleans U.S. District Court
158. State Supreme Court
159. State Appellate Court
160. State Trial Court
161. Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
162. Middle Circuit (of the United States)
163. Southern Circuit (of the United States)
164. Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
165. Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
166. California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
167. Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
168. Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
169. Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
170. Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
171. Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
172. Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
173. Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
174. Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
175. Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
176. Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
177. Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
178. Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
179. Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
180. Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
181. Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
182. Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
183. Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
184. Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
185. New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
186. New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
187. New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
188. North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
189. Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
190. Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
191. Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
192. Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
193. South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
194. Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
195. Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
196. Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
197. Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
198. West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
199. Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
200. Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
201. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
202. Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
203. Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
204. Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
205. Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
206. Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
207. Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah
208. South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota
209. North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota
210. Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma
211. Court of Private Land Claims
Answer: