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).

HAYS, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Boria was convicted after a jury trial of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b) (1) (A), and conspiracy to commit these acts in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He appeals on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Specifically, he contends that the government’s main witness against him testified that the criminal acts of which Boria was accused took place in October or November of 1971, a period during which Boria was concededly in jail. After the jury verdict of guilty appellant made a motion in the district court pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. Rule 29(c) for a judgment of acquittal on this ground. The district court denied the motion. We affirm.
The main witness against Boria was Dolores Martinez. She testified that beginning in October 1971 she regularly met with John Campopiano in a tavern in the Bronx and in other places and purchased cocaine from him. In January or February of 1972 Campopiano first told her that he also had heroin for sale but that she would have to have “front money”- — that is, that she would have to pay for the heroin before receiving it. When she asked if she might take the heroin on consignment he went to the back of the tavern and consulted Gennaro Zanfardino and returned to tell her she could not.
She further testified that within a few days thereafter she twice arranged for appellant to purchase heroin from Campopiano.
The day after giving this testimony Martinez took the stand and amended her prior testimony by stating that the meeting at which Campopiano had consulted Zanfardino had occurred not in January or February 1972 but in November 1971.
This testimony did not require the jury to find that, since Boria was in jail in November 1971, no sale to him had taken place. Martinez’ changed testimony related only by implication to the sales to Boria. At no time did she explicitly direct her attention to the sales to Boria, which involved large quantities of heroin and the exchange of considerable sums of money, on one occasion $25,000, or state that they had occurred in November 1971. It is not surprising that her testimony as to dates of meetings with Campopiano should be somewhat confusing. She testified to at least fifty drug sales and to numerous meetings with Campopiano. When asked how many times she had had meetings with Campopiano during which Campopiano left her to ask questions of Zanfardino and then returned with an answer, she replied, “Several times.” The jury could and apparently did find either that Martinez was mistaken about the date of the meeting which preceded the sales to Boria or that she had confused that meeting with a similar meeting in November.
There was other testimony which supports this interpretation. On cross-examination Martinez emphasized that her original purchases had been exclusively of cocaine and that she had not received heroin from Campopiano until February of 1972. There was also testimony by an Assistant United States Attorney that in an interview before trial Boria admitted that he had lived in the apartment described by Martinez as the place where the sales to Boria occurred.
It is the province of the jury to “weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact.” United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1972). Applying this standard, we find that there was sufficient evidence that the sales to Boria took place in February 1972.
We have considered appellant’s other claims and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
. The district court’s charge to the jury was probably more favorable than appellant deserved. The court charged the jury:
“If you find that Dolores Martinez’ testimony concerning the defendant Arcadio Boria places the time of their dealings in November, 1971, then I charge you you must acquit Boria because he was not in New York City until after December 23, 1971 and that fact is not in dispute.”

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