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:
Clarence E. WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 71-2228
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1971.
Clarence E. Woods, pro se.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., E. Ray Taylor, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
[1] Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying the petition of Woods, a federal prisoner, for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Woods is serving a six year sentence imposed on February 25, 1966, for interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. On February 18, 1970, he was released from his sentence on mandatory release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 4163, with 736 days remaining to be served. On October 27, 1970, a mandatory release violator’s warrant was issued after Woods was arrested by Georgia state police and charged with auto theft. The warrant application also charged that Woods had failed to comply with other conditions of his release by failing to submit a monthly report and failing to report a change in residence. The warrant was executed on December 26, 1970, and a revocation hearing was held on February 24, 1971.
As grounds for habeas corpus relief Woods contends that he was returned to federal custody on a warrant application, not on a warrant; he was not informed of the parole board’s decision; there was no probable cause for the warrant; the parole board was biased against him; and the revocation hearing was unreasonably delayed. Woods also contends that he is entitled to credit on his sentence for the time spent on mandatory release, that his accumulated good time cannot be revoked, and his release under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4163 was absolute and irrevocable.
The district court found from the record that a warrant was in fact issued and executed, but that even if Woods was served only a copy of the warrant application, it was adequate notice of the violations charged to enable him to prepare a defense. The court below also found that Woods never denied the truth of the charges on which the warrant was based; that he offered no factual allegations to support his contention of bias; and that the two month delay in holding the hearing was not unreasonable. A review of the record reveals no clear error in these findings.
It is well settled that Woods is not entitled to credit on his sentence for time spent on mandatory release. Blanchard v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 13; Garnett v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 1211; Clark v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 952. The contention that his earned good time could not be revoked is equally without merit. Smith v. Attorney General, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 488; Smith v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1966, 367 F.2d 539. Finally, Wood’s contention that mandatory release is irrevocable is untenable. Tippit v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 534; Garnett v. Blackwell, supra; Buchanan v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1967, 372 F.2d 451.
Affirmed.

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