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:
Roman Columbus BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 73-1785.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 1973.
Decided Jan. 15, 1974.
Roman Columbus Brown, pro se.
Donald J. Stohr, U. S. Atty., and Richard E. Coughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., filed brief for appellee.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and STUART, District Judge.
W. C. Stuart, District Judge, Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Brown appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denying his petition for a correction of his federal sentence.
On May 5, 1972, appellant was arrested by the St. Louis, Missouri, police on a charge of armed robbery. On May 8, 1972, a federal detainer was lodged against appellant for parole violation. On June 15, 1972, the state charge was dismissed and appellant was subsequently returned to federal custody. During the period from May 5 to June 15, appellant was in continuous state custody, unable to secure his release on bail. Appellant seeks to have the time spent in state custody credited against his federal sentence on the theory that the federal detainer was the cause of his inability to make bail.
Title 18, United States Code, § 3568, provides in part:
The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an offense shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. The Attorney General shall give any such person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed. (Emphasis added.)
Focusing on the “in connection with” language of this section, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Davis v. Attorney General (5th Cir., 1970), 425 F.2d 238, 240, held that a prisoner denied release on bail by state authorities because of an outstanding federal detainer lodged against him is in custody in connection with a federal offense and entitled to credit against his federal sentence for the time spent in state custody. This court has recognized the authority of Davis. See Shields v. Dagget (8th Cir., 1972), 460 F.2d 1060, 1061.
The court is of the opinion that appellant’s case is within the rule set forth in Davis. Appellant is entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the decision below is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order granting appellant the credit to which he is entitled against his federal sentence.
Judgment reversed and remanded with directions.
. Since appellant received no credit for the time spent in state custody against any state sentence, there is here no problem of double credit for the time spent in state custody. This case is thus distinguishable from the facts in Shields and in Doss v. United States (8th Cir., 1971), 449 F.2d 1274.
. Although appellant only seeks to have his federal sentence shortened by five days, it appears from the record that he is entitled to credit for the entire period from May 8, the day the detainer was lodged against him, to June 15, the day he was released from state custody.

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