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).

CLARK, Associate Justice.
Charles A. Macaboy appeals from a verdict and judgment of guilty on six counts of an indictment charging him with violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act. The case follows the same pattern as Dear Check Quong v. United States, - U.S. App.D.C. -, 160 F.2d 251, and Thomas Higgins v. United States,-U.S.App.D.C. -, 160 F.2d 222. Here, as in those cases, the only evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of the narcotic agent, who, on three occasions, had searched an informer employed by the government, given him money with instructions to make a purchase, followed the informer, keeping him always in sight, observed the transactions between the informer and appellant, and then received from the informer the packages containing the drug.
Appellant’s first point, which challenges the sufficiency of this evidence to sustain the conviction, is disposed of by our decisions in the Quong and Higgins cases wherein we held that “evidence to this effect, if believed by the jury, as it was, was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty.”
Appellant further contends that the court below erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence and the standards which must be met by such evidence in order to warrant conviction although he made no request for such an instruction. He maintains, however, that the better rule is that the defendant is entitled to such instruction as a matter of right without request and cites decisions of several state courts in support of this rule. Appellant also recognizes that there is considerable opposition, to the rule especially in the federal courts. It is to be noted that the states which favor the rule apply it only in cases where-the conviction is wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence and do not extend' the rule to instances where there is, as, was the case here, direct incriminatory evidence presented tending to connect defendant with the crime. Moreover, no reason is presented and none is apparent why the rule long followed in the other appellate federal courts should be departed from, by us.
Affirmed.
53 Stat. 272, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Code, § 2554 (a).
42 Stat. 596, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.
Hughes v. United States, 5 Cir., 231 F. 50, certiorari denied 242 U.S. 640, 37 S.Ct. 112, 61 L.Ed. 541.
Gardner v. State, 27 Wyo. 316, 196. P. 750, 15 A.L.R. 1049.

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