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 from conviction after jury trial on 17 counts of receiving, possessing and transporting a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1) (App.1970). The District Judge sentenced defendant to one year and a day imprisonment on counts one through six, and two years imprisonment on the other 11 counts, with all terms to run concurrently. He then suspended all prison time except six months on the first six counts, with a three-year probation term scheduled to begin after the six months of incarceration.
Appellant’s appeal before this court is directed to only three of the counts referred to above, numbers 4, 9 and 16. As to them the argument is advanced that the specific weapons here concerned were “inoperable” according to the testimony of the doctor from whose house they had been stolen.
Since we perceive no basis under which our resolution of this appeal could have any effect upon appellant’s imprisonment or subsequent parole, or for that matter enjoyment of life, in view of the fact that 14 of the ,17 concurrent sentences are not under attack, in the interest of judicial economy, we decline to hear and we dismiss these appeals. See Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Ethridge v. United States, 494 F.2d 351 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1025, 95 S.Ct. 504, 42 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975).
Although no appellate issue has been brought to us on this score, the court takes cognizance of decisions of other circuits concerning the statute here at issue which hold generally that the government may not treat weapons simultaneously possessed by a felon as separate offenses related to each separate weapon. See United States v. Calhoun, 510 F.2d 861, 869 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 950, 95 S.Ct. 1683, 44 L.Ed.2d 104 (1975); United States v. Kinsley, 518 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1975). Cf. United States v. Steeves, 525 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975). We note that the 17 weapons considered in this case were stolen at one time and possessed at one time. However, since this issue has not been briefed or argued before us and the three-count sentences here involved are all concurrent, we elect to defer consideration of this issue to an appropriate case.
The opinion 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