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:
Howard Oren ADKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16972.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1962.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, through appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to an information in two counts charging him with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 472, (1) in uttering a counterfeited Federal Reserve Note, and (2) in possessing and concealing five other counterfeited Federal Reserve Notes. He was convicted on his plea and was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Thereafter he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to have the sentences vacated on the grounds (1) that the court failed to determine that the plea was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge; (2) that there was no evidence before the court to show that the crimes had been committed; and (3) that he had been improperly held in the city jail at St. Louis, Missouri, for 65 hours prior to being taken before a United States Commissioner. The court denied the motion without a hearing.
The transcripts of the arraignment proceeding and of the sentencing proceeding are both contained in the files and records. They clearly demonstrate that the entry of a plea of guilty in appellant’s behalf by his counsel was with voluntariness on the part of appellant and with understanding by him of the nature of the charge. Among other things, the transcripts show that appellant had had an almost continuous history of criminal charges, convictions and sentences against him since 1947. He was experienced in the entry of pleas of guilty. In this situation, the statement of his counsel that appellant had been' advised of the nature of the charges against him and of his rights , in relation thereto manifestly was not mere jargon to him. There was persuasive basis for the court to resolve at the time that the plea of guilty was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.
As a matter of fact, appellant’s contention here appears not so much to be that his plea had not been made voluntarily and with understanding of the nature of the charge, but rather that his conviction was legally invalid because the court failed to make a formal finding and recitation at the time that it was satisfied this was the fact.
The provision of Rule 11, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., that, on a plea of guilty being made, the court "shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge”, imposes on the court the responsibility of making certain that these conditions exist, but there is no requirement that the court must enter a formal finding or recitation to this effect.
As to appellant’s second and third contentions, these are without substance for collateral attack upon his sentence. A plea of guilty is an admission of all the essential elements of an information or indictment so that no other proof on the part of the Government is necessary for a judgment of conviction. Harris v. United States, 8 Cir., 288 F.2d 790; Bartholomew v. United States, 8 Cir., 286 F.2d 779; Heideman v. United States, 8 Cir., 281 F.2d 805. Again, delay in taking a prisoner before a Commissioner is not a basis for collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction. Further, when a prisoner pleads guilty to an offense, he thereby waives the significance of any irregularities in his arrest and previous restraint.
To clear the records of the appeal pending from appellant’s notice of appeal, the case will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee, and it will thereupon be dismissed as frivolous.
Appeal dismissed.

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