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. Harry Duane SHEETS, Appellant.
No. 20453.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
June 8, 1971.
Richard J. Bruckner, Omaha, Neb., made argument for appellant.
Richard A. Dier, U. S. Atty., Dilworth A. Nebker, John A. Gale, Asst. U. S. Attys., Omaha, Neb., made argument for appellee.
Before ALDRICH LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Harry Duane Sheets, appeals his conviction on six counts of securities fraud under 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77q(a) and 77x, two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 and one count of conspiracy to violate the above statutes under 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. He received a two year sentence of imprisonment on each of the six counts of securities fraud, the sentences to run concurrently, and an additional two year concurrent sentence on each of the other counts. The latter sentence, which is to run consecutive to the sentence under the securities counts, was suspended and the defendant placed on probation for three years on the expiration of the sentence under the first six counts.
Defendant primarily attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction under the various counts. Sheets was convicted of defrauding several investors by selling to them fractional working interests in oil wells located in the State of Nebraska. He formed the Mid-Continent Oil Company and employed salesmen to solicit monies for drilling wells on the various leases. A total of $178,329.12 was invested in these fractional interests from August 1965 thru July 1967. Meager royalty payments from only one well were ever returned to the investors. The defendant sold substantial interests in two wells which were never drilled. The defendant and his salesmen generally represented that drilling in these wells would commence immediately although the money previously invested to drill these wells had already been fully dissipated thus making further operations impossible. The record is replete with misrepresentations and “lulling” of investors by the defendant and his salesmen in the promotion of the drilling leases. In review of the entire record we are satisfied there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under each of the counts. See United States v. Porter, 441 F.2d 1204 (8 Cir., filed April 29, 1971), United States v. Prionas, 438 F. 2d 1049 (8 Cir. 1971).
Judgment affirmed.
. Defendant also claims he was denied the right of confrontation of witnesses by the testimony of an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission that he began his investigation of Sheets due to the receipt of letters from the Securities Commissioner in the State of Nebraska and an investor. No objection was made to this testimony at the time. Notwithstanding this deficiency of the record, it cannot be said that the testimony was in any way prejudicial nor does it rise to a constitutional infirmity as defendant suggests. The testimony contained “no express assertion about past fact” which in any way incriminated the defendant. Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 88, 91 S.Ct. 210, 219, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970). Sheets’ other complaint is that he was denied due process since his co-defendant, one of his salesmen charged as a co-conspirator, received only probation in contrast to his sentence of imprisonment. Disparity of sentence between two defendants, absent a showing of abuse of discretion, is not a proper ground for appellate review. DeRosier v. United States, 407 F.2d 959 (8 Cir. 1969); Jones v. United States, 396 F.2d 66 (8 Cir. 1968) cert. denied 393 U.S. 1057, 89 S.Ct. 695, 21 L.Ed.2d 697 (1969).

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