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, Appellee, v. James ARTERBRIDGE, Appellant.
No. 347, Docket 30973.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued March 13, 1967.
Decided March 14, 1967.
Roger J. Hawke, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for Southern Dist. of New York, Pierre N. Leval, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Kevin T. Duffy, New York City, for appellant.
Before KAUFMAN, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a trial without jury, Judge MeGohey found appellant guilty of trafficking in narcotic drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. In open court we have affirmed the conviction.
It is undisputed that on the evening of July 11, 1963, appellant delivered a package containing heroin to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Appellant testified at his trial, however, that an acquaintance, Abe Montgomery (who unknown to appellant was a government informer), had told him that he had a buyer for narcotics but did not have any drugs to deliver. According to Arterbridge, Montgomery then offered him $5.00 to deliver a package to the buyer. Appellant testified that Montgomery stated that the package contained only milk sugar. Montgomery, on the other hand, denied having made any arrangement whatsoever with the appellant.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction because there was no proof that he knew that the package contained narcotics. However, 21 U.S. C. § 174 provides:
Whenever on trial for a violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.
From the evidence presented, Judge MeGohey could properly have concluded that appellant had not satisfactorily explained his possession of the narcotics. Arterbridge’s testimony as to the alleged arrangement with Montgomery was wholly contradicted by Montgomery. The trial judge observed both witnesses and therefore was able to assess their credibility. Conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed on appeal. United States v. Brown, 335 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1964). Moreover, statements made by appellant at the time he delivered the narcotics to Federal Agent Coursey indicate that he was aware of another transaction in narcotics that had occurred the previous evening. Appellant’s statements and furtiveness, coupled with his delivery of the heroin and Montgomery’s testimony, constituted sufficient evidence from which to infer that appellant had knowledge of the contents of the package. See United States v. Palmiotto, 347 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1965); United States v. Davis, 328 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1964).
Affirmed.
21 U.S.C. § 174 provides in part:
Whoever fraudulently or knowingly * * * facilitates the * * * sale of any such narcotic drug [as described in 21 U.S.C. § 173] * * * shall be imprisoned for not less than five years or more than twenty years * * *.
(Emphasis added.)

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