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:
McGOWEN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 7303.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Decided June 19, 1939.
Washington, D. C., for appellant. David A. Pine, U.
S. Atty., and How- ard Boyd and Stephen P. Llaycock, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C. Before GRONER, Chief Justice,
and EDGERTON. and VINSON, Associate Justices. EDGERTON, Associate Justice. Defendant
appeals from a
conviction of forgery. The sole question is whether prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. Section 582 of the Criminal Code provides that “No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of- fense,” with exceptions not material here, “unless the indictment is found * * * within three years next after such offense shall have been committed.” Section 583 provides: “Nothing in sections 581 and 582 of this title shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.” The indictment was found
on March 3, 1937, and fixes the date of the crime as January 23, 1934. It is stipulated that the defendant “shortly after January 24, 1934, absented himself from the District of Co- lumbia and thereafter remained continu- 118 u.S.C. § 582, ously absent therefrom” until February 26, 1938; and that from January 29, 1934 to February 26, 1938, he was confined in a penal institution in Virginia. The record contains no other pertinent facts.
“To be a fugitive from justice, in the sense of the act of congress regulating the subject under consideration, it is not necessary that the party charged should have left the state in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, after an indictment found, or for the purpose of avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but simply that having within a state committed that which by its laws constitutes a crime, when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal process to answer for his of-fence, he has left its jurisdiction, and is found within the territory of another.” The Supreme Court first used that language with regard to the extradition law, but afterwards expressly applied it to the statute here involved. Accordingly appellant, when he left the District after committing forgery, was a “person fleeing from justice,” regardless of his motive in leaving.
Appellant urges that he was no longer “fleeing” while he was a prisoner in Virginia. But the reason for his continued absence would seem to be no more material, on the question of “fleeing,” than the reason for his original departure. Moreover, the question whether he continued to be “fleeing” is itself immaterial. Just as “any person selling drugs” is equivalent, in statutory language, to “any person who shall sell drugs,” so “any person fleeing from justice” is equivalent to “any person who shall flee from justice.” The statute does not say “any person fleeing from justice and continuing in flight for three years.” “We must take the statute to mean what its language plainly imports, that a person who flees from justice before its bar takes effect shall have no benefit whatever from it.” The question is not whether he remained out of the District for any particular reason, or at all ; it is enough that he did not remain for three years within the District.
Affirmed.
18 U.S.C.A. § 582~ 18 U.S.C.A. § 582~
Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80, 97, 6 S.Ct. 291, 300, 29 L.Ed. 544.
Streep v. United States, 160 U.S. 128, 134, 16 S.Ct. 244, 40 L.Ed. 365. Cf. Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U.S. 222, 229, 27 S.Ct. 122, 51 L.Ed. 161, 7 Ann.Cas. 1073.
Howgate v. United States, 7 App.D.C. 217, 244. .
In re Bruce, C.C.,132 F. 390, 393, affirmed, 4 Cir., 136 F. 1022.

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: 0