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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Ferguson KAISER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-1796.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Submitted May 17, 1979.
Decided June 4, 1979.
Joseph F. Dolan, U. S. Atty. and Nancy E. Rice, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert Bruce Miller of Miller & Gray, P.C., Boulder, Colo., for defendant-appellant.
Before McWILLIAMS, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.
Anthony Kaiser was convicted by a jury of distributing a controlled substance, namely amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In the indictment, amphetamine was described as a Schedule III controlled substance. This was an error, be it typographical or otherwise, as amphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance, rather than Schedule III.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the Government had failed to show that amphetamine was a Schedule III controlled substance, as stated in the indictment. This motion was denied. Thereafter, counsel sought, but was denied, an instruction to the effect that Kaiser should be found not guilty unless the Government proved that amphetamine was a Schedule III controlled substance.
On appeal the only matter urged as ground for reversal relates to the fact that the indictment mistakenly listed amphetamine as a Schedule III controlled substance, whereas in fact it is a Schedule II controlled substance. Such does not warrant a reversal.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(3) provides as follows: Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the indictment or information or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.
Describing amphetamine as a Schedule III controlled substance, when actually it is a Schedule II controlled substance, is a type of “error” contemplated by Rule 7(c)(3). Such error, under the rule, is not ground for reversal of a conviction on appeal unless the defendant was misled to his prejudice. There is nothing in the present record to indicate that Kaiser was misled to his prejudice. Kaiser, along with three others, was charged with unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally distributing amphetamine on or about August 24, 1977, in Denver, Colorado in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Thus, Kaiser was clearly apprised of the transaction relied on by the Government. Had Kaiser been acquitted, he had adequate protection against being tried again on the same transaction. Of course, Kaiser was not acquitted, but was convicted, and now appeals that conviction.
In support of our disposition of the matter, see United States v. Walker, 557 F.2d 741, at 746 (10th Cir. 1977); United States v. Malicoate, 531 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. 1975); and Robbins v. United States, 476 F.2d 26 (10th Cir. 1973).
Judgment affirmed.
Amphetamine was by statute listed as a Schedule III controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. § 812. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 811, amphetamine was reclassified as a Schedule II controlled substance. 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12.

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