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:
James L. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. A. R. JAGO, Superintendent, Respondent.
No. 76-2038.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1977.
Decided June 10, 1977.
James L. Jackson, pro se.
Kurt A. Philipps, Jr., Covington, Ky. (Court appointed CJA), for petitioner.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, David J. Simko, Leo J. Conway, Columbus, Ohio, for respondent.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, CELE-BREZZE, Circuit Judge, and GUY, District Judge.
Honorable Ralph B. Guy, Jr., Judge, United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
James L. Jackson appeals from the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
On February 25, 1974, three armed robbers entered an Ohio service station and took $2,000 from two attendants. Approximately four weeks later, a police detective took the two service station attendants to a courtroom where Jackson was to be arraigned on unrelated charges. The detective asked them to sit in court and see if they recognized any of the participants in the robbery. When Jackson appeared in the courtroom for his hearing two and one-half hours later, both witnesses immediately recognized him as one of the three assailants. Following this identification, Jackson was charged with the robbery of the service station. The two attendants testified at the trial and positively identified Jackson as one of the three armed men who robbed them. The jury found him guilty on one count of the indictment. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial District of Ohio. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed Jackson’s appeal, concluding that no substantial constitutional question was involved.
The principal contention of Jackson on the present appeal is that he was denied his right to counsel and due process at the courtroom “showup.” We conclude that this contention is without merit under United States v. Black, 412 F.2d 687 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018, 90 S.Ct. 583, 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970). Jackson relies upon the Wade-Gilbert-Stovall trilogy. He asserts that if these three cases had been decided prior to Black, a different result would have been mandated. We reject this contention. In the present case Jackson had not been charged at the time of the courtroom showup. He was not charged with the service station robbery until after the two witnesses had observed him in the courtroom and identified him as one of the robbers. Since a critical stage of the prosecution had not been reached, it was not necessary to have counsel present. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689-90, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972).
We find no violation of Jackson’s due process rights. The identification procedure in the present case was not suggestive. The witnesses were placed in the courtroom and instructed “to watch everyone that comes into the courtroom, everyone that entered and left the courtroom.” If they saw anybody they recognized, they were requested to contact the police detective immediately. They followed these instructions and identified Jackson without any suggestive techniques on the part of the police. Accordingly, we hold that Jackson’s reliance on the Wade trilogy is misplaced.
Jackson also complains that the State trial judge read a three count indictment to a jury panel, although he was actually tried on only one of the three counts. He also asserts that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We conclude that these two contentions are without merit.
Affirmed.
. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967); and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

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