Task: songer_appel1_7_5

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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

PER CURIAM.
Floyd A. Beasley, who is now confined in the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, on August 9, 1957, alleging that unlawful sentence had been pronounced upon him in February of 1946 because his- conviction had been based upon illegal evidence admitted dur-? ing his trial by the jury which convicted him.
The record shows that the able attorney for the petitioner had, before his trial, filed an elaborate motion to suppress evidence, with an accompanying affidavit. The evidence then referred to was in substance the same as that .referred to in the motion filed in the district court on August 9, 1957. Upon the trial of the case, the motion to suppress was heard and testimony thereon taken outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and the motion was overruled. The defendant testified — upon the hearing of his motion — concerning the search, which he then charged and now insists was unlawful.
In 1948, appellant filed an extended motion in the district court in which he urged again that he was convicted on evidence unlawfully seized. This petition for a new trial was overruled and there was no appeal. It is thoroughly established that a motion to vacate sentence under section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C., is not to be substituted for a direct appeal.
In overruling the motion to vacate sentence from which appeal has been taken to this court, United States District Judge Boyd in his order stated that the prisoner had been tried by a jury and convicted of using the mails in an effort to extort a large sum of money and that he had been sentenced to a long term and a large fine. The judge stated that his memory of the evidence at the trial was very clear and vivid; that the prisoner had made similar lengthy accusations of unlawful search of his premises by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation previous to his trial, and had fTed a lengthy affidavit and motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The judge stated further in his order that he had let the motion to suppress be brought up by objections to the evidence at the time of the trial and had heard in the customary manner outside the presence and hearing of the jury the details of the alleged unlawful search, including the testimony of appellant. The district court held the evidence to be competent and the trial proceeded, it being ruled that the actions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in conducting the search were lawful and proper. There was no appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence.
In its order overruling appellant’s motion to vacate sentence, the district court found that the motion on its face and the files and records in the case show conclusively that the prisoner is not entitled to any relief prayed in his motion. After consideration of the briefs, the record, and the record in the original trial of the case, we are of opinion that denial by the district judge of the motion to vacate sentence was correct.
The order of the district court is accordingly affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?
A. not ascertained
B. poor + wards of state
C. presumed poor
D. presumed wealthy
E. clear indication of wealth in opinion
F. other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy
Answer:

Answer: B