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.
Appellant Robert Brim was convicted in 1958 in South Dakota state court of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1979, he sought post-conviction relief in state court, alleging that neither his attorney nor the court advised him of his right to appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied relief, finding that Brim had been advised of his right to appeal. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Brim then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied the petition on two grounds. First, the court found the petition barred under the doctrine of laches as embodied in Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under this Rule, the state must show prejudice resulting from unreasonable delay. Cotton v. Mabry, 674 F.2d 701, 704-05 (8th Cir.1982). South Dakota showed that the trial judge had died and that large portions of the trial transcript had been destroyed by water damage while in storage. Brim delayed 21 years in challenging his conviction, even though he had been in contact with several attorneys during the course of his incarceration. We agree with the district court that under these circumstances Rule 9(a) dismissal was proper.
As an alternate basis for its decision, the court, after conducting an independent review of the record, concluded that there was substantial evidence that Brim was advised of his right to appeal. Brim’s trial attorney stated by affidavit that while he did not remember specifically advising Brim of his appeal right, he always advised his clients of that right and that the trial judge at Brim’s trial also was in the habit of advising defendants of the right to appeal. We agree with the district court that this was sufficient to prove that Brim had been advised of his right to appeal. See Bouchillon v. Estelle, 628 F.2d 926, 929 (5th Cir.1980).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. 8th Cir.R. 12(a).
. The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
. Rule 9(a) provides:
A petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds of which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of due diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.
Rules following 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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