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).

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 466 for a certificate of probable cause for an appeal from the dismissal by the District Court of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, that court holding the petition did not state any ground for relief.
A similar motion for the certificate has been denied by the District Court below. For the reasons hereafter stated, I agree it was properly denied.
The prisoner has been convicted and sentenced by the Superior Court' of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, on one count of conspiracy, California Penal Code, § 182, and several counts of grand theft, California Penal Code, § 484. His sentence on the grand theft counts are to run concurrently, but consecutively to the conspiracy sentence.
The prisoner is in prison now less than one year, which is the minimum sentence for the grand theft counts. If there is no denial of due process in respect to those counts, then he is legally imprisoned and the petition for habeas corpus is prematurely brought. In respect to the grand theft counts, the prisoner maintains that on his appeal to the District Court of Appeal for the State of California that court, in its opinion, misstated the facts and so decided the case improperly. Since, however, the facts so misstated supported the legal points held by the California District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of California refused to grant a hearing under its rule that a hearing after a decision by the District Court of Appeal would be granted only if the law there expressed was incorrect as ap-. plied to the facts as set forth in the opinion. People v. Davis, 147 Cal. 346, 81 P. 718. This statement, if correct, indicates no more than error in the course of appeal. The writ of habeas ■ corpus is not available to relieve from error. Burall v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 134 F.2d 614.
Petitioner is imprisoned by authority of a sentence imposed under California Penal Code, § 1168, the Indeterminate Sentence Law of that state. He claims that that sentence is. void because the law is invalid under Article VI, § 1 of the California Constitution, *“and thereby deprives petitioner of due process and equal protection of the law guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the United States.”
The validity of the- California Indeterminate Sentence Law was upheld in so far as Article III, § 1 of the California constitution is concerned in In re Lee, 1918, 177 Cal. 690, 171 P. 958. The arguments there made are equally applicable to Article VI, § 1, and have, I believe, settled this question beyond further consideration by a federal court. Petitioner’s contention would make every criminal sentence in California invalid. I do not agree. .
The motion is denied.
“Section 1. The judicial power of the State shall be vested in the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, in a supreme court, district courts of appeal, superior courts, such municipal courts as may be established in any city or city and county,' and "such inferior courts as the Legislature may establish in any incorporated city or town, township, county or city and county.”
“Section 1. The powers of the government of the State of California shall be divided into three separate departments — the legislative, executive, and judicial; and no person charged with the • exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except as in this Consti- • tution expressly directed or permitted.”

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