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 ex rel. David WHITTEN, Appellant, v. Warren PINTO, Superintendent Rahway State Prison Farm, Rahway, New Jersey, Appellee.
No. 17189.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 1969.
Decided March 4, 1969.
David Whitten, pro se.
Matthew J. Scola, Asst. Prosecutor, Newark, N. J. (Joseph P. Lordi, County Prosecutor of Essex County, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and GANEY and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial without an evidentiary hearing of his request for a writ of habeas corpus. Although appellant raised several issues before the district court, on this appeal he challenges only the correctness of the determination that his federal constitutional right to effective representation by counsel was not violated. The district court made this determination from an examination of the state trial transcript. No question of exhaustion of state remedies is involved.
Appellant alleges that several months before trial he requested the state court to appoint counsel for him and that such counsel was not “assigned” until the day of trial. He further asserts that his counsel contacted him for the first time directly before the opening of the trial and that their consultation lasted for no longer than twenty minutes. He contends that the inadequacy of the time given him to consult counsel before deciding whether or not to waive a jury trial and counsel’s lack of time to prepare a defense deprived him of his constitutional rights.
We cannot find in the record, which includes the state trial transcript, any official indication of the date of the appointment of appellant’s counsel in the state criminal proceedings. It is important to establish this fact because it may determine whether, as appellant contends, there was a belated appointment of counsel. This court has recently held that, where it is found that the appointment of counsel was belated, the burden rests upon the State to establish by appropriate means that the defendant was not prejudiced thereby. United States ex rel. Mathis v. Rundel, 394 F.2d 748 (1968); United States ex rel. Chambers v. Maroney, 408 F.2d 1186 (Jan. 22, 1969). Since the district court did not have the benefit of these cases, we think it is appropriate here to vacate the judgment and remand the matter for a determination of the issue raised on appeal after the record is appropriately supplemented.
We note that appellant has also made the related contention that he had inadequate consultation with counsel. He asserts that the consultation only related to the decision as to whether to waive a jury trial and that there was no private consultation with regard to the issues of the case. Appropriate disposition of this contention must also be made by the district court.
The judgment of the district court will be vacated and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Appellant signed a written waiver and, when questioned by the State trial judge, said that he understood the consequences thereof.
. We need not here decide whether the application of the belated appointment rule involves factors other than the time lapse between appointment of counsel and trial; e. g., the nature of the charges and the types of defenses involved.

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: 0