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).

PER CURIAM.
The appellee procured a judgment in the lower court for the payment of installments alleged to be due upon a war risk insurance policy. The judgment was amended by stipulation of the parties to correct errors in the judgment in regard to the date of proof of permanent and total disability and withdrawing requirement that the installments be paid in the future, the purpose being to conform to the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Worley, 281 U.S. 339, 50 S.Ct. 291, 74 L.Ed. 887.
The judgment having been thus amended by stipulation the appellee moves for dismissal of the appeal herein or for the af-firmance of the judgment upon the theory that the judgment finally entered in the case below was a consent judgment.
We cannot agree that the amendment of the judgment by consent to correct mutually acknowledged errors in the judgment in any way deprived the appellant of its right to appeal from the judgment as amended. This question was considered by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Becker v. Anchor Realty & Investment Co., 71 F.2d 355. We agree with the disposition of that matter made by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Motion denied.

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: A