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 v. Douglas F. BROWN, a/k/a Douglas Brown, Appellant.
No. 72-1208.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
March 16, 1973.
J. Gordon Arbuckle, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant.
Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Brian W. Shaughnessy, Philip L. Cohan, and John J. Mulrooney, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, ELBERT P. TUTTLE United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, and MacKINNON, Circuit Judge.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, who was convicted of possession of a sawed-off shotgun, raises a number of issues, only one of which deserves comment. Before trial, appointed defense counsel apprised the court of appellant’s prior criminal record, and inquired whether any of appellant’s prior convictions would be admissible to impeach him. The court ruled it would only admit the most recent conviction — for assault with intent to commit robbery in 1968. The trial judge thus appears to have exercised his discretion, foreclosing any challenge to the 1970 amendments to the Luck statute in this case. Defense counsel seems to have acquiesced in the trial court’s decision — there was no mention of a Luck hearing nor argument for the judge to exercise his discretion to exclude the most recent conviction as well. This court has repeatedly held that the burden is on defense counsel to invoke Luck and to show why the court should exercise its discretion to render a prior conviction unavailable for impeachment. The failure of the court to hold a Luck hearing is therefore not grounds for reversal in this case.
Appellant notes that there is substantial indication that defendants with court-appointed lawyers fare far worse than those with retained attorneys. As he points out, an indigent’s advocacy alternatives are limited and the efforts of his appointed counsel are often hampered by institutional pressures. Thus, appellant asserts, sole reliance on the adversary system to protect the defendant’s rights is unrealistic. Appellant would have us take these facts into consideration in applying the plain error rule when a court appointed counsel has failed to register an objection. Appellant urges that these considerations should also apply to ameliorate the burden on counsel to invoke the Luck rule. But we think it would be unwise to act on that suggestion now.
There is nothing in the record before us to indicate whether counsel’s failure to ask for a Luck hearing was an informed tactical choice or a decision undertaken out of ignorance of the relevant law or indifference to her client’s interests. Although appellant’s counsel on appeal (who is not trial counsel) disclaims reliance on ineffectiveness of counsel, that issue necessarily lurks in the suggestion that the defendant should not be bound by the failures of his trial attorney. This court has held, however, that we will not resolve the matter of the effectiveness of trial counsel where, as here the record is inadequate for the purpose of deciding whether counsel’s challenged decision was a deliberate, knowing and rational tactical choice. Appellant is not deprived of a remedy for a meritorious claim; he may seek to raise the issue of ineffectiveness and support his claim with evidence dehors the record either on a timely motion for a new trial or on collateral attack.
Affirmed.
. Appellant was convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d); possession of a firearm not identified by serial number, 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (i); and possession of a prohibited weapon, 22 D.C.Code § 3214(a).
. Appellant also asserts as error the improper admission of evidence of the factual circumstances of his arrest and the prosecutor’s discussion of the legal concept of possession in his summation. We find neither an adequate reason for reversal.
. Defense counsel recited a series of charges against appellant dating back to 1965, including a recent sentence under the Youth Corrections Act.
. 14 D.C.Code § 305 (Supp. V 1972) (purporting to preempt the trial judge’s discretion by permitting the impeachment of a witness by any of a specified group of crimes for which the witness had been convicted.) The constitutionality of this statute is currently under consideration by this court in United States v. Henson, No. 71-1456 (D.C.Cir. filed June 13, 1971); United States v. Marshall, No. 71-1491 (D.C. filed June 10, 1971); United States v. Brown, 71-1497 (D.C.Cir. filed June 18, 1971); United States v. Jeffries, 71-1356 (D.C.Cir. filed May 3, 1971).
. United States v. Coleman, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 110, 113, 420 F.2d 1313, 1316 (1969); Smith v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 131, 131-132, 406 F.2d 667, 667-668 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 963, 89 S.Ct. 1315, 22 L.Ed.2d 564 (1969); Evans v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 118, 397 F.2d 675, 678-679 (1968); Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 346, 383 F.2d 936, 939 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1029, 88 S.Ct. 1421, 20 L.Ed.2d 287 (1968).
. See, e. g., Summers, The Tilted Scales of Criminal Justice: The Plight of the Indigent Defendants, 5 Crim.L.Bull. 508 (1969); D. Oaks & W. Lehman, A Criminal Justice System and the Indigent: A Study of Chicago and Cook County, 108-38, 150-67 (1966); United States v. Martin, No. 71-1457, 154 U.S.App.D.C. _ at _, 475 F.2d 943 at 956 (1973) (Chief Judge Bazelon dissenting) (citing a study by the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts showing that offenders with appointed counsel receive longer sentences than offenders with privately retained attorneys).
. See, e. g., ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Providing Defense Services, Approved Draft 1968, § 1.4 commentary (b) at 20-21 (an “assigned lawyer . . . may not have the same freedom of action in defending his client before the judge responsible for the assignment that retained counsel would have”) ; A. Blumberg, Criminal Justice 3-38, 95-116 (1967); L. Downie, Justice Denied 173-77, 179-82 (1971); President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, Task Force Reports: The Courts 57-61 (1967).
. See United States v. Martin, No. 71-1457, 154 U.S.App.D.C. _ at _, 475 F.2d 943 at 954 (1973), (Chief Judge Bazelon dissenting).
. See, e. g., People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487 (1963) (Justice Traynor, writing for the court, reversed a conviction for ineffectiveness where counsel failed to move for the suppression of evidence because of his ignorance of the relevant law).
. See United States v. Benn & Hunt, _ U.S.App.D.C. _, 476 F.2d 1127 (1972).
. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; see, United States v. Thompson, No. 71-1182, 154 U.S.App.D.C. _, 475 F.2d 931 (1973); United States v. Smallwood, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 387 at 393, 473 F.2d 98 at 104 (Nov. 9, 1972) (Bazelon, Chief Judge, concurring); Marshall v. United States, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 5 n. 11, 436 F.2d 155, 159 n. 11 (1970). A motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence may be made within two years of final judgment. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. Where evidence of the ineffectiveness of trial counsel is brought to the attention of the court for the first time in support of the motion, that evidence is “newly discovered” for the purposes of Rule 33. See United States v. Thompson, No. 71-1182, 154 U.S.App.D.C. _, 475 F.2d 931 (1973).
. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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