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).

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Whereas this court on May 29, 1963, entered a judgment dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled case, and whereas a certified copy of the judgment was issued to the District Court on September 24, 1963, and whereas the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for writ of certiorari to this court reversing and remanding this case for further proceedings, and appellant having filed a motion for summary reversal, and this case having been heard on the merits on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is
Ordered that the certified copy of the judgment and opinion issued to the District Court is hereby recalled, and it is
Further ordered that the judgment and opinion dated May 29, 1963, 116 U.S. App.D.C. 127, 321 F.2d 393, are hereby vacated, and it is
Further ordered that appellant’s motion for summary reversal is hereby denied, and it is
Further ordered that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause be and it is hereby affirmed, and it is
Further ordered by the court that appellee Hankin recover from appellant his taxable costs on this appeal and have execution therefor.

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: F