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:
Buster O’NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 29398
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 10, 1970.
Joseph W. Popper, Jr., Macon, Ga., for appellant; Buster O’Neal, pro se.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir., See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
O’Neal appeals from the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in state proceedings and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty to a charge of automobile larceny. We affirm.
During the District Court’s eviden-tiary hearing, O’Neal testified that he spoke with counsel for no more than five minutes before the guilty pleas were entered. He further alleged that although he pled guilty to the charge of escape, he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty to the charge of auto larceny. The District Court, however, found that O’Neal pled guilty to both escape and auto larceny “knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly and that he was afforded and enjoyed the benefits of the effective assistance of counsel.” The court also found O’Neal’s uncorroborated testimony regarding his innocence unworthy of belief and concluded: “The procedures employed by petitioner’s court-appointed counsel in no way deprived petitioner of the effective assistance of counsel. * * * [The attorney] acted in a competent and professional manner.”
This Court will not distrub the District Court’s findings of fact on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a); accord, Washington v. Smith, 5 Cir.1969, 417 F.2d 301, 302; Foster v. Beto, 5 Cir.1969, 412 F.2d 892, 893; Doughty v. Beto, 5 Cir.1968, 396 F.2d 128, 130. Certainly the trial court is in a better position than we to determine such a factual matter as the credibility of a witness’s testimony or the efficacy of counsel’s assistance. See, e.g., Gibson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1970, 423 F.2d 1110, 1111. Thus we cannot fault the District Court’s refusal to believe O’Neal’s uncorroborated testimony. Nor can we question its evaluation of his counsel under the circumstances presented here.
A charge of ineffective assistance by counsel may not be sustained unless it clearly appears well grounded. In cases where the accused pleads guilty, appointed counsel, to effectively represent his client, must ascertain only that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Lamb v. Beto, 5 Cir.1970, 423 F.2d 85, 87; see Edwards v. United States, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 256 F.2d 707, 709, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 74, 3 L.Ed.2d 82. In this regard, the time which counsel spends with an accused is merely one factor to be weighed in evaluating the effectiveness of representation. Doughty v. Beto, supra, 396 F.2d at 130; accord, Evans v. Beto, 5 Cir.1969, 415 F.2d 1129, 1130; Foster v. Beto, supra, 412 F.2d at 893.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that O’Neal has manifested no denial of his constitutional rights which could give rise to habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(c) (3).
Affirmed.
. On the first appeal of this case, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing. O’Neal v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 269.

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