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).

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant George N. Charlton, Jr., a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service, was removed from his position on September 29, 1963, “to promote the efficiency of the Service.” The specific charges against Charlton were that he had (1) failed to report an attempted bribe; and (2) failed properly to care for official documents. The Hearing Officer sustained the removal of Charge 1 but found Charge 2 not proven. The Regional Commissioner, however, upheld the removal on both charges. Charlton exhausted his administrative appellate rights, and then brought an action in the District Court under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., to review the administrative determination. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted by the District Court on April 26, 1967. The District Court found that all procedural requirements had been met, and held that the merits of the dismissal were beyond the scope of judicial review.
On appeal from that order, we reversed and remanded for further review of the administrative record. We held that 5 U.S.C. § 706 required the District Court:
“to review the administrative record and to determine whether the Commission’s action was supported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its discretion.”
Charlton v. United States, 412 F.2d 390, 393 (3d Cir. 1969). On remand, the District Court again granted summary judgment for the defendants after a thorough review of the administrative record. Charlton has again appealed to this court.
While we may have drawn inferences from the evidence that would be different from those drawn by the Commission, our review of the record reveals substantial evidence that supports the charges for which Charlton was removed from his I.R.S. position. And despite our feeling that Charlton’s removal is a severe punishment for the violations that were charged, we cannot say that the discharge is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
The District Court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants will be 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: A