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:
Joseph M. JOYNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17472.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Argued May 3, 1963.
Decided June 20, 1963.
Mr. Charles W. Halleek, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Seymour S. Mintz (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Robert D. Devlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy and Wright, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, charged with robbery, was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery. Since “robbery, under the District statute, is possible without assault,” he maintains that assault with intent to commit robbery is not “an offense necessarily included in” a charge of robbery. Rule 31(c), F.R.Cr.P.
The District robbery statute denounces several kinds of acts taking the property of another, at least one of which apparently does not require an assault. Appellant was charged in the full language of the statute, substituting, of course, the conjunctive and for the disjunctive or where necessary. Thus, under the indictment, assault may not have been a necessarily included lesser offense as'to all kinds of takings charged. But on the facts as developed during the trial, assault with intent to rob was clearly proved. Since the indictment did charge a taking by force and violence, appellant’s conviction of the lesser included offense of assault with intent to rob was permissible. Rule 31(c), F.R.Cr.P.
In effect what appellant is attempting to do here, through his very competent court-appointed counsel, is to attack the indictment for duplicity. The attack, however, comes too late. See Rule 12(b) (2), F.R.Cr.P.
Affirmed.
. 22 D.C.Code § 2001 provides: “Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery, and any person convicted thereof shall suffer imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than fifteen years.”
. Pope v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 19, 141 F.2d 727, 728 (1944).
. See Notes 1 and 2. See also Spencer v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 98, 116 F.2d 801 (1940).
. See 4 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure § 1798.

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