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.
Levon Brown filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. Both petitions were based upon substantially the same facts. The District Court denied relief in each case and Brown appealed. We have consolidated the appeals.
Brown has been incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota, on a five-year sentence for forgery. It appears from the record before us that Brown is also wanted in Wisconsin for parole violation. In August of 1971, the United States Board of Parole granted Brown a limited parole in order to permit him to dispose of the outstanding Wisconsin charge. Brown was taken by the Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff from Sandstone to Pine City, Minnesota, for delivery to Wisconsin authorities. Once in Pine City, Brown refused to submit to Wisconsin’s custody. He was then returned to Sandstone and has remained there to the present time.
Brown contends that his return to Sandstone was illegal in that it was unauthorized by law' and denied him the right to contest extradition. He also contends that he was entitled to the assistance of an attorney. The latter contention apparently stems from Brown’s belief that his parole was revoked and he was, thus entitled to a hearing before he was returned to Sandstone.
We find no merit in any of these contentions. The Board of Parole has wide discretion to determine under what conditions an inmate is to be paroled. See, O’Callahan v. Attorney General, 338 F.2d 989 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 1563, 14 L.Ed.2d 685 (1965); Gould v. Green, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 141 F.2d 533 (1944). It is clear that the Parole Board may parole an inmate to the custody of detainers. Mingo v. United States, 350 F.2d 313 (10th Cir. 1965); Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole, 292 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1961).
Brown was paroled “to the physical custody of detainers only.” Under this language, his parole was ineffective until the moment he was taken into physical custody by Wisconsin authorities. Since Brown’s transfer to Wisconsin never occurred, the parole never became operative. Cf., Small v. United States Board of Parole, 421 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1079, 90 S.Ct. 1532, 25 L.Ed.2d 815 (1970).
Under this view of the ease, we need not consider whether Brown was entitled to the services of an attorney or to a hearing. Since the parole never became effective, there was no revocation and thus no hearing was required. See, Morrissey v. Brewer, 443 F.2d 942 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, 404 U.S. 999, 92 S.Ct. 568, 30 L.Ed.2d 552 (1971).
Nothing we have said in this opinion should be construed to determine the right of any parolee, who has been paroled to something other than the custody of detainers only, to contest extradition.
The denial of the petitions for writ of habeas corpus is 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: B