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, Appellee, v. Ewald Percival VAN WEST, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 71-1228.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard Feb. 3, 1972.
Decided Feb. 18, 1972.
Robert J. Griswold, San Juan, P. R., for defendant-appellant.
Jorge Rios Torres, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Julio Morales Sanchez, U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of assaulting an officer of the Bureau of Customs while engaged in the performance of his official duties, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. Defendant, the pilot of a small twin-engined aircraft, was watching a customs officer search his airplane after its arrival at San Juan, Puerto Rico, from the Virgin Islands. He became agitated when the officer insisted upon inspecting a lunch sack, grabbed the sack, called the officer names and hit him in the face with a spray can. A complaint was filed in the district court charging defendant with violation of section 111, but thereafter he was indicted on a one-count indictment which did not mention section 111, but listed, instead, sections 113 and 1114. Section 1114 is used, in part, to designate officials the assaulting of whom is made a federal crime by section 111. See note, ante. It has no connection with section 113. Correspondingly, the body of the indictment was appropriate to section 111, and unrelated to section 113.
At the conclusion of the government’s case defendant moved for acquittal, claiming that the government had not proved maritime or territorial jurisdiction as required by section 113. The court determined that the use of section 113 in the indictment’s caption was a technical error, and ordered it changed to section 111. The trial then continued. Defendant was convicted, and he appeals.
We find defendant’s position lacking in merit. Under F.R.Crim.P. 7(c) the miscitation of a statute is not material if “the error . . . did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.” See Gaunt v. United States, 1 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 284, 289, cert. denied 340 U.S. 917, 71 S.Ct. 350, 95 L.Ed. 662; United States v. Cook, 3 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 293, cert. denied 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 451, 24 L.Ed.2d 434. See also Russell v. United States, 1962, 369 U.S. 749, 760-763, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240. Defendant here could not have been misled by the erroneous citation of section 113. Not only was it apparent on the face of the indictment that the reference to section 113 was erroneous, but from defendant’s counsel’s examination of the government witnesses it is clear that he was concerned with the specific allegations of the indictment, which set forth a case precisely within section 111. Defendant’s claim that he was misled by the penalty provision, which under section 111 is larger than under section 113, might be relevant if he had pleaded guilty, but it is meaningless when he went to trial. Defendant knew that he was being tried for the assault of a federal officer in the performance of his official duties. That was enough.
Affirmed.
“Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

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: 5