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:
Leon SEBRING, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 22003.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 11, 1966.
Leon Sebring, Huntsville, Tex., for appellant.
Sam R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Stanton Stone, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Alio B. Crow, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before RIVES, BROWN and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
In 1953, Sebring was indicted for raping a five-year-old girl. The judge of the 124th District Court, Gregg County, Texas, appointed three lawyers to represent the defendant. The jury found Se-bring guilty and assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. He was convicted and sentenced to a term of from five to ninety-nine years. No appeal was taken.
After exhausting his state remedies, Sebring petitioned the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had not had effective assistance of counsel and that he had been denied his right to confrontation by adverse witnesses. After a hearing in which Sebring was represented by assigned counsel, the District Court held that Sebring had had effective assistance of counsel at every material step in the proceedings against him and had not been deprived of any right to confrontation. The petition was accordingly denied.
Sebring does not challenge the trial judge’s finding that he was not denied the right to confrontation. The witnesses for the prosecution testified in court, not by deposition, and were subject to cross-examination by defense counsel. Judge Ingraham’s finding that there was no denial of any right to confrontation is amply supported by the record.
The record also supports the conclusion of the District Court that Sebring was effectively represented by counsel throughout the proceedings against him. The decision not to send the younger two of the three lawyers representing Sebring to the scene of the crime was reasonable, in light of the desire of the defense not to inflame the neighbors against the defendant. The presentation of defense witnesses at trial in no way suggests that Sebring’s legal representation was inadequate. The defense called three witnesses. Sebring’s lawyers wisely refused to let Sebring himself testify, since Se-bring had previous convictions for sexual offenses. Sebring alleges that three other witnesses should have been called for the defense; but Sebring did not tell his lawyers about the possibility of favorable testimony from one of the three until the trial was over, and did not mention the second until the day of the trial. The third was the little girl herself, whose very presence could have prejudiced the jury against Sebring.
Nor was Sebring’s representation inadequate because the most experienced of his three assigned attorneys (a lawyer with many years of criminal defense practice) was too ill to sum up. Sebring’s senior attorney had already shaped the strategy of the defense, and the more experienced of the two lawyers who summed up for Sebring had practiced law for some nine months.
Finally, the District Court could reasonably conclude from the evidence before it that the failure to appeal came from fear of the death penalty which might be the result of a new trial, rather than from inadequacy of counsel.
We need not consider at this time Sebring’s allegations of unlawful arrest and prolonged detention before arraignment since these allegations did not appear in his petition to the District Court. McCutcheon v. Beto, 327 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Long v. Bundle, 327 F.2d 495 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 1638, 12 L.Ed.2d 501 (1964); Huntington v. State of Michigan, 334 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1964).
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