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. Roberto Power BENTHIEN, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 7776.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 25, 1970.
Roberto Power Benthien pro se.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
On September 13, 1967, after a jury finding of guilty, defendant was sentenced in the district court of Puerto Rico by a visiting judge. He was represented by competent counsel, and the court, relying upon counsel, did not itself inform defendant of his appeal rights as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a) (2). Defendant did not appeal. Thereafter he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking to reinstate his right of appeal. The court found that although the trial judge did not advise defendant of his rights, his counsel did so immediately following the imposition of sentence, and defendant told him that he did not wish to appeal. On this basis the court ruled that the failure to comply with Rule 32(a) (2) was harmless error, and denied relief.
The obvious purpose of Rule 32(a) (2) is to insure that all defendants who might wish to appeal are fully aware of their appeal rights. That purpose, we believe, is best served by allowing a section 2255 motion to reinstate an appeal whenever the trial court has failed to comply with the rule, without regard to whether or not the defendant had obtained knowledge of his rights from some other source. Determination of the extent of a defendant’s actual knowledge will often turn solely upon judgments as to the veracity of conflicting witnesses and the reliability of their memories. The natural tendency of counsel is to believe they have fully performed their duties when in fact they may not have and the defendant, for his part, will often have nothing to offer but his own claim of ignorance. For one who was in fact ignorant of his rights such a proceeding is a poor substitute for initial compliance with the rule. Our holding insures that all defendants will receive the protection the rule was intended to provide. It will at the same time serve to warn district judges of the necessity of strict compliance.
Our decision finds support in the views of the Supreme Court when dealing with the effect of the district court’s failure to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 when accepting a guilty plea. McCarthy v. United States, 1969, 394 U.S. 459, 468-472, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 The order dismissing the present petition must be vacated. Judgment is entered restoring defendant’s right of appeal, and the district court clerk is directed to file the necessary notice pursuant to Rule 32(a) (2). This court will appoint counsel to represent the defendant.
There remains the question of bail pending appeal. Taking all things into consideration, including the nature of the charge, the absence of the sentencing judge from Puerto Rico and our lack of independent knowledge as to whether there is any merit in the appeal, we decline to grant bail at this time. If counsel, when appointed, finds reason to move for reconsideration of this matter, he may do so.
In Halliday v. United States, 1969, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 recognizing that there was logic, in the harmless error approach, the Court ruled that its decision in McCarthy was apply-cable only to guilty pleas accepted after the date that opinion was handed down. The same might be said here, but we need not reach that question.

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