Task: songer_respond1_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 respondent. 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.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed by this Virginia recidivist, was first denied without a hearing. We remanded the case with instructions to hold a hearing.
At the hearing subsequently held, testimony was offered upon the basis of which the District Judge found that the petitioner was not represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty in 1938 to an indictment charging housebreaking and theft. He found further that the petitioner was not offered counsel by the presiding judge in 1938, was unaware that he was entitled to counsel, and that the circumstances were such that his conviction, without the assistance of counsel, was a denial of due process. The District Court concluded that, since the first underlying conviction was invalid, the defendant’s recidivist conviction in 1952, as a third offender, was also invalid. Following his conviction as a third offender, the petitioner escaped, committed another crime, of which he was thereafter convicted, and then received an additional sentence as a fourth offender.
The District Court was also of the opinion that the fourth offender sentence was invalid, since, in fact, there were then only three previous valid convictions.
The District Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have the writ issued, but he delayed the actual issuance of the writ on the condition that an appeal be promptly taken, or, alternatively, that steps be taken to retry the defendant for the 1938 offense, or to retry him under a recidivist charge as a third offender.
The respondent has appealed, contending only that the finding that the petitioner was not advised of his right to counsel prior to his 1938 conviction was clearly erroneous. While the prisoner made other patently irresponsible and apparently fabricated claims, he testified that he had no counsel, was not advised of his right to counsel, and mistakenly understood that he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor when, in fact, the' charge was a felony. The prosecuting officer at the time of the 1938 conviction, now an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was offered as a witness by the respondent. He remembered the circumstances of the crime and testified that the practice of the judge, who received the guilty plea in 1938, was to accept the plea after inquiring only whether the prisoner wished to plead guilty. His testimony corroborates the prisoner’s claim that he was not offered counsel and was not informed that he had any right to representation by an attorney.
Under these circumstances, we think the finding of the District Judge is not clearly erroneous and that he correctly concluded that the writ of habeas corpus should be issued, since the prisoner is not now being held under any valid sentence.
The District Court, in its order, also stipulated that the writ would not issue if, within sixty days of his order, steps were taken by the Commonwealth of Virginia to retry the prisoner as a third offender. That time has now expired. We think it appropriate that the writ issue upon remand, but, of course, issuance of the writ will not prejudice the right, if any, the Commonwealth may have to rearrest the prisoner and now to retry him as a third offender. Whether or not the defendant may have a valid defense to conviction in any such proceeding is a question not properly addressed to us.
Affirmed and remanded
. Bolling v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 281 F.2d 192.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. 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