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).

Opinion:
Carl Leroy LEONARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 74-1740
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 23, 1974.
Hartwell Davis, Montgomery, Ala. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., Wade B. Perry, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the appellant’s motion to vacate his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
Appellant, represented by privately retained counsel, was convicted on his plea of guilty of the charge of rape on land within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2031. He was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. In his motion to vacate sentence, appellant alleged as grounds for relief that the district court was without jurisdiction because the crime did not occur within the boundaries of federal lands. The district court denied relief based upon a finding that the crime originated and was partially committed on federal lands although some of the. acts involved transpired elsewhere.
The undisputed facts show that appellant accosted his victim in the parking lot of the Airman’s Dining Hall on Maxwell Air Force Base. He showed her a screwdriver and told her he wouldn’t hurt her if she accompanied him. He hit and stabbed her with the screwdriver, forced her into his automobile, then drove to a motel off the base where actual penetration occurred. Appellant contends that the rape occurred off the base and, therefore the federal court was without jurisdiction.
A sovereign has jurisdiction to try an offense where only a part of that offense has been committed within its boundaries. Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 47 S.Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. 793 (1922); Rivard v. United States, 375 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, Groleau v. United States, 389 U.S. 884, 88 S.Ct. 151, 19 L.Ed.2d 181; also United States v. Vicars, 467 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 967, 93 S.Ct. 1451, 35 L.Ed.2d 702; United States v. Correa-Negron, 462 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1972); People v. Buffum, 40 Cal.2d 709, 256 P.2d 317 (1953); Caldwell v. State of Miss., 176 Miss. 80, 167 So. 779 (1936). Therefore, if appellant committed a part of the crime on federal lands, the federal court had jurisdiction.
“The federal crime of rape carries with it the requirement of proof of the use of force by the offender and of an absence of consent by the victim.” Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 715, 66 S.Ct. 778, 780, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946). See also United States v. Bryant, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 420 F.2d 1327 (1969); Baber v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 324 F.2d 390 (1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 972, 84 S.Ct. 1139, 12 L.Ed.2d 86; United States v. Rider, 282 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1960). In this case the element of force employed by appellant to achieve his purpose began on federal lands and continued to the consummation of the crime at a site off the Air Force Base. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Issues raised in the appellate briefs for the first time will not be considered by this court, but should first be presented to the district court.
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?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 1