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).

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted after trial by jury in the District of Kansas upon each of three counts of an indictment charging the unlawful trafficking in narcotics. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years upon each count, such sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals and with the aid of appointed counsel urges error in the trial upon three grounds: insufficiency of the evidence to support conviction under Count 3 of the charge; error in the court’s instructions; and lack of effective assistance of counsel at the trial.
No claim is made that a judgment of conviction upon Counts 1 and 2 is not amply supported by the evidence nor that the total sentence imposed is not proper under either of these counts. In such case an attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction under Count 3, even if warranted, cannot invalidate appellant’s sentence nor result in relief granted. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692; McMurray v. United States, 10 Cir., 298 F.2d 619.
Appellant’s complaint relative to the court’s instructions is based upon the contention that the evidence warranted an instruction upon the issue of entrapment. No such issue was claimed at the trial nor was objection made to the court’s failure to instruct upon entrapment. We would not ordinarily consider the present claim when not properly premised in the record but are constrained to do so because of the companion claim of lack of adequate representation by trial counsel.
The crux of the government’s case rested in the testimony of a “special employee” who was used by government narcotic agents to effectuate several purchases of heroin from appellant. The “special employee” in each instance was searched by a government agent, given fifteen dollars in marked money, allowed to make contact with appellant while under visual observation by regular agents, and was again searched after making such contact with appellant. Upon this second search the “special employee” was found to have obtained heroin and disposed of the money. He testified:
“I told him (appellant) that I would like to purchase some narcotics, and he said he thought it was possible, and I purchased three capsules of heroin from him.”
Appellant did not testify and the informer’s version of the purchase remained totally uncontradicted.
We find no merit to the contention that the issue of entrapment rests against this background of events. Rather the circumstances point directly to the establishment of a simple opportunity to commit crime with the appellant subjectively mistaking the safety of the circumstances. This is not entrapment. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 485, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848; Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859; Marshall v. United States, 10 Cir., 293 F.2d 561.
A careful review of the trial proceedings indicates that appellant was adequately represented by trial counsel and that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were not violated. It is true, as present counsel emphasizes, that counsel did not voice a single objection during the course of the trial proceedings. This trial technique may sometimes be indicative of lack of experience but in other circumstances may be the considered practice of the skillful attorney. In the case at bar the prosecution presented a careful and complete case to which appellant apparently had no answer. Neither vigor nor skill can overcome truth. Success is not the test of effective assistance of counsel. Mitchell v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 259 F.2d 787.
Affirmed.

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