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.
This matter came on for hearing before the District Court upon the certificate of the Superintendent of St. Eliza-beths Hospital dated November 15, 1961, and testimony of medical witnesses that the appellant was an appropriate subject for a conditional release under D.C.Code Ann. § 24-301 (e) (1961). The District Court having heard the testimony and considered the certificate denied conditional release. Our review of the record fails to disclose that the District Court abused its discretion in denying release on the evidence presented. Overholser v. Leach, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 257 F.2d 667 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013, 79 S.Ct. 1152, 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959).
However, in view of the lapse of time since the certificate of the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital our determination is without prejudice to the filing of a contemporaneous certificate if the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital presently considers that appellant’s condition warrants a conditional release at this time. By the time of any subsequent hearing, should one be held, St. Elizabeths Hospital will have had an additional six months or more to observe appellant and evaluate his eligibility for release.
Affirmed.
. In the event of such hearing the District Court should make findings. See Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A.; Whittaker v. Overholser, 112 U.S.App. D.C. 66, 299 F.2d 447 (1962) ; Tatem v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 275 F.2d 894 (1960).

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