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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Henry BECK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-2528
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 4, 1973.
James C. Bonner, Jr., Decatur, Ga. (Court appointed), for defendant-appellant.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., George H. Connell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
This is a direct appeal from Richard Henry Beck’s conviction for possession and forgery of a stolen United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1708 and 495. The criminal activity occurred about May 8, 1969. While in a county jail on other state charges some time in February of 1970, federal authorities indicated their interest in Beck to state officials. On April 27, 1970, federal agents questioned Beck who admitted possessing and endorsing the cheek by using the name of John R. Kelly; he also provided the agents with a handwriting sample. On May 11, 1970, federal authorities issued a formal complaint and lodged a detain-er against him since he was still in state custody. Beck wrote to the United States Attorney or District Court on at least three occasions in an effort to lift the detainer. However, Beck was not indicted until February 7, 1972. Thus 21 months elapsed between the formal detainer and the indictment.
Appellant states in his brief that the “one issue presented for appeal concerns the District Court’s denial of Appellant’s motion under Rule 48(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking dismissal of the indictment for unnecessary and oppresive [sic] delay of 21 months in presenting the charges, lodged against him in prison as a detainer, to the grand jury.”
Rule 48(b) provides discretionary authority in the District Judge: “If there is unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to a grand jury . . ., the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint.” According to our recent decision in United States v. Judice, 5 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 414, 415 n. 1, a “timely indictment under the limitation statute is not ‘unnecessary delay’ under Rule 48(b).” Here Beck was indicted well within the 5-year statute of limitations specified by 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Furthermore, upon a review of the record and circumstances presented here, we do not believe the Trial Judge abused his discretion by refusing to dismiss the indictment.
Affirmed.
. Beck’s violations of state and federal law include a conviction on March 3, 1970, of a federal offense for illegal possession and transferal of guns, resulting in a sentence for 18 months of imprisonment. On March 10, 1970, he was convicted by the State of Georgia on drug charges and sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment. His convictions in the present case occurred on June 6, 1972, resulting in 6 more months to be served concurrently with his prior sentences.
Beck first served the state sentence, and then was transferred to federal custody. Imprisonment for both the gun violations and the present Treasury check violations has already ended. Nevertheless, this case is not moot because of possible collateral consequences. See generally Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Murray v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 450 F.2d 465, 468.

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