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.
Appellant appeals pro se from the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970). Previously he had been convicted of bank robbery on October 10, 1973, and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment on December 10, 1973.
On appeal that conviction and sentence was affirmed by this court by order dated April 19,1974, in case Nos. 73-2167-68, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, 419 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 99, 42 L.Ed.2d 87 (1974).
Appellant’s § 2255 motion argued two issues as to which this court granted the government’s motion to affirm the District Court’s decision in an order entered September 10, 1975. The issue which remains in this appeal pertains to appellant’s argument that when sentenced in 1973, he was eligible for sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010 (1970), and that the court made no express finding that he would not benefit from sentencing under that Act. After the District Judge entered the sentence on December 10, 1973, this court and the United States Supreme Court both decided cases which required express findings of “no benefit” to the defendant where eligibility for sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act existed and its provisions were not employed. Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974); Brooks v. United States, 497 F.2d 1059 (6th Cir. 1974).
Our concern with this case was triggered by the fact that a number of circuits have applied Dorszynski to cases which were final at the time Dorszynski was decided without, however, expressly stating that Dorszynski should be given retroactive effect. On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit has expressly held Dorszynski to have prospective effect only. Jackson v. United States, 510 F.2d 1335 (10th Cir. 1975).
On inspection of the record in this case, we find it to be peculiarly inappropriate for deciding the issue referred to above. In addition to the nature of the crime for which defendant had been convicted and the nature of the sentence thought appropriate by the sentencing judge, we take into account in this regard appellant’s prior record which was before the District Court at the time of sentencing and which was a Juvenile Court record extending from 1963 through 1968, and a continuing record in Kentucky’s Criminal Courts down to the date of the subject bank robbery. If we were to assume Dorszynski should be applied retroactively, remand for resentencing on this record would, we believe, be a meaningless gesture.
The judgment of the District Court as to this issue also is therefore affirmed.
. Sappington v. United States, 518 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1975); Belgarde v. United States, 503 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Flebotte, 503 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1974); Hoyt v. United States, 502 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1974).

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