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:
George Martin BRADLEY, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Appellee.
No. 19337.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
April 15, 1969.
George M. Bradley, pro se.
Calvin K. Hamilton, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BLACKMUN, MEHAFFY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
. PER CURIAM.
George Martin Bradley, a federal prisoner, is presently confined at the Federal Medical Center, Springfield, Missouri, having been convicted by trial to a jury on two separate counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d) (armed bank robbery). Bradley was tried, convicted and sentenced by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, but brought the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus' in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, contending that the Missouri district court had jurisdiction by reason of his having exhausted his remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the committing court.
Judge Elmo B. Hunter denied Bradley’s petition in a memorandum and order holding that petitioner had not exhausted his remedies in the committing court as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to Bradley’s right to avail himself of any remedy he might have in the committing court by way of a § 2255 motion. We affirm.
This is the second time that petitioner has been before this court, having previously appealed from an order of the committing court denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Bradley v. United States, 347 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1016, 86 S.Ct. 628, 15 L.Ed.2d 530 (1966), we affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, holding in a carefully considered per curiam opinion that the order by Judge Stephenson (the sentencing court) denying Bradley’s petition for relief under § 2255 was proper.
Judge Hunter noted in his memorandum opinion that, in the former appeal, Bradley had made the following contentions: (1) he was not competent to stand trial; (2) he was not given a proper hearing to determine his competency to stand trial; (3) the Government failed to sustain its burden of proving that he was sane at the time of the alleged offense; (4) he was not competent at the time of sentencing; and (5) his court-appointed counsel negligently and incompetently represented him. These contentions were reasserted in the petition in the present case, and Judge Hunter, following the teachings of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963), and in view of the relatively recent ruling of the Iowa district court against petitioner on the merits of these points, and affirmance by this court, determined that the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the present application insofar as it involves the points heretofore adjudicated.
Judge Hunter also found that other contentions raised by petitioner had not been previously presented to the Iowa district court, and, therefore, had not been considered by the Iowa court. These contentions include failure to order a psychiatric examination during the time of the trial; failure to order a psychiatric examination which would include an inquiry into petitioner’s mental capacity at the time of the offense; failure of the court to protect petitioner’s right to due process of law; and failure to accord petitioner a mental hearing just prior to trial. These additional contentions are matters prematurely brought in the Missouri district court and Bradley must first avail himself of his remedy, if one exists, in the committing court by way of a § 2255 motion. The last paragraph of § 2255 provides that an application for writ of habeas corpus shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Glenn v. Ciccone, 370 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1966).
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court of Missouri denying the application for writ of habeas corpus is correct, and the judgment is affirmed.
. We said in Bradley v. United States, 347 F.2d 121, 123 (8th Cir. 1965):
“A review of the district court files convinces us that Bradley’s court-appointed counsel was able and protective of every right possessed by the defendant. He displayed zeal, ingenuity, and competency.”
. The Supreme Court held in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068 (1963), that petitioner’s successive applications were properly denied where he sought to retry a claim previously fully considered on its merits and decided against him and where the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.
. Judge Hunter also cites Simcox v. Harris, 324 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1006, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1964); Queen v. Page, 362 F.2d 543 (10th Cir. 1966); Duncan v. Carter, 299 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 952, 82 S.Ct. 1602, 8 L.Ed.2d 818 (1962). For more recent cases, see Dixon v. Bhay, 396 F.2d 760, 761 (9th Cir. 1968); Putt v. United States, 392 F.2d 64, 65, n. 1 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 929, 89 S.Ct. 264, 21 L.Ed.2d 266 (1968).

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