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 B. DANDRIDGE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 14664.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 20, 1959.
Decided Feb. 12, 1959.
Mr. William Beasley Harris, Washington, D. C., (appointed by the District Court) for appellant.
Mr. Edgar T. Bellinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee.
Before Prettyman, Chief Judge, and Edgerton and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PRETTYMAN, Chief Judge.
Dandridge was indicted in two counts for carrying a dangerous weapon and for assault with a dangerous weapon. He pleaded guilty to the latter. Thereafter he moved to withdraw his plea, but the motion was denied and he was sentenced. He appealed to this court from the denial of his motion, and we affirmed. He filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General confessed error, and the Court reversed. Thereupon the District Court, pursuant to mandate, vacated the plea of guilty.
In the meantime the other count in the indictment (for carrying a dangerous weapon) had been dismissed on motion of the Government. When the plea of guilty was vacated, this count was reinstated on motion of the Government. Then appellant was reindicted on both of the two original counts, and the original indictment was dismissed. Trial was had before a jury, and Dandridge was found guilty of carrying a dangerous weapon and not guilty of assault. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.
Dandridge was first indicted September 4, 1956. He came to trial on August 13, 1958. He claims violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We find no merit in this contention, because the lapse of time was due to appellant’s original plea of guilty and his later efforts to extricate himself from that plea.
Appellant says he had a right to have the gun in his possession, because he had had difficulty with the complaining witness whom he shot and the shooting actually occurred in Dandridge’s home. He requested the court to instruct in accordance with the doctrine of Wilson v. United States. The court refused the request, and he argues to us that this was reversible error.
We think the doctrine of the Wilson case was not applicable to the present case. Dandridge, after his difficulty with complainant Allen, took his pistol from under his mattress in his home, put it in his waistband, and went across the street, where he sat on a neighbor’s steps for over an hour. Thus, clearly, he was guilty of carrying a dangerous weapon during this interval of time, and on the public street. In the Wilson case Wilson had a pistol in his automobile. While the car was stopped and Wilson was out of it, a disorderly group of men and women began an attack on him. He retreated to the car, opened the door, and got the pistol. This court said that the exigencies of the occasion justified Wilson in getting the pistol and using it in his self-defense; therefore, at the moment when Wilson took the pistol into his hand, he had a legal justification for doing so. Thus, we said, the only question in that case was whether the pistol, while in the automobile before the difficulty began, was “on or about his person” as that term is used in the statute. The difference between the problem in the Wilson case and that in this case is readily apparent.
We have considered the other points raised by appellant and find no reversible error in those respects.
Affirmed.
. Dandridge v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 247 F.2d 105 (1957).
. Dandridge v. United States, 356 U.S. 259, 78 S.Ct. 714, 2 L.Ed.2d 757 (1958).
. 91 U.S.App.D.C. 135, 198 F.2d 299 (D.C.Cir., 1952).

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