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).

MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.
Though the notice of appeal in this case is inartistically drawn and perhaps technically defective, we read it indulgently in the light of the record, and take it to be, what it no doubt was intended to be, an appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion by appellant under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a judgment of conviction in which a sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed for a narcotics offense under 26 U.S.C. § 2553. It is conceded by the government that the appeal is timely. Mercado v. United States, 1 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 486.
We disregard allegations in appellant’s brief and appendix thereto having no support in the record. The record before us is brief and presents a simple situation. Upon arraignment in the district court, Claudio Gonzalez Rodriguez, being advised by counsel, signed a waiver of indictment, and pleaded guilty to an information filed by the United States Attorney. After a short statement by the prosecutor as to the defendant’s prior criminal record, the court forthwith imposed the sentence of imprisonment, in a judgment entered October 26, 1951.
On September 15, 1953, appellant filed in the district court his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the aforesaid judgment of conviction. The sole ground stated in the motion for attacking the validity of the judgment is the allegation that “the evidence on which the conviction rests was illicit”, in that it was procured in the course of an unconstitutional search and seizure. It is not even claimed in the motion that appellant was innocent of the offense charged.
But the judgment of conviction does not rest on evidence turned up in an unlawful search and seizure but, rather, upon the plea of guilty. The judgment of conviction upon the plea of guilty cannot be held to be void, and thus open to attack on habeas corpus or on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a substituted remedy provided by Congress for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus. If one is guilty, there is nothing wrong in pleading guilty — nor is there error by the court in accepting such a plea and sentencing the accused thereon- — even though it might be true that the government would have been unable to establish the accused’s guilt had he pleaded not guilty.
The order of the District Court 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