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:
Nathaniel Roebuck BEATTY, Appellant, v. J. O. KEARNEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Appellee.
No. 22764.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
March 11, 1966.
Nathaniel Roebuck Beatty, pro se. Thomas K. McWhorter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before RIVES and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges, and GARZA, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from an order by the U. S. District Court denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, appellant assigns as grounds for relief several alleged defects in a state court conviction, which conviction led to the revocation of his parole from federal custody. He further asserts that the District Court erred in not granting him a hearing on his petition.
Appellant’s contentions are without merit. Since petitioner was at the time of the filing of his petition and is now in federal custody as a result of the revocation of his parole from a federal conviction, “he has no grounds for review in this Court of his state conviction whether improperly obtained or not.” Washington v. Hagan, 3rd Cir., 1960, 287 F.2d 332, cert. denied, 1961, 366 U.S. 970, 81 S.Ct. 1934, 6 L.Ed.2d 1259.
Thus there was no need to hold a hearing in this case. Even if we construe the petition as attacking the revocation of appellant’s parole, we are satisfied that the Parole Board had before it sufficient evidence to justify revocation. As stated in Wright v. Settle, 8th Cir. 1961, 293 F.2d 317, 319, the question of whether a parole violation has occurred is subject to being raised in habeas corpus “only on the narrow basis that what was before the Board compelled the conclusion as a matter of law that there had been no violation of the conditional release or parole, and that the Board therefore acted without authority in making the revocation."
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: 1