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:
In re UNITED STATES GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, Juan A. CID, Witness. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Antonio CID-MOLINA, a/k/a Juan Cid, et al., Defendants, Juan A. CID, Appellant.
No. 85-4271.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 30, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1985.
Douglas L. Williams, Miami, Fla., C. Michael Hill, Lafayette, La., for appellant.
Judith Lombardino, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lafayette, La., for the United States.
Before RUBIN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges, and POLOZOLA , District Judge.
District Judge of the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
Juan A. Cid appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and the court’s order that Cid comply with the subpoena by executing a consent, directed to “any bank or trust company at which I have a bank account,” for the production of bank records. His principal objection is that the compulsion offends his Fifth Amendment privilege. We affirm.
Conceding that the bank records themselves would not be protected, Cid contends that the signing of this consent has testimonial consequences, in that “he would be confirming (through the medium of the intervention of the Court) that he had (1) created an account or accounts revealed by the ‘Consent Directive’ (2) at an off-shore bank, otherwise ‘safe’ from scrutiny by the Government of the United States, and (3) had engaged in whatever transactions the records of those accounts reflected.” We disagree, because we see no disclosure, no admission and no inculpatory effect in the general language of this consent.
We follow the lead here of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Ghidoni, 732 F.2d 814 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 328, 83 L.Ed.2d 264 (1984) and the Second Circuit in United States v. Davis, 767 F.2d 1025 (2d Cir.1985). The same consent form was at issue in Ghidoni, and we agree with that court’s reasoning, which needs no repetition or enlargement.
Cid also complains that the subpoena is an abuse of the grand jury process because its purpose is solely or principally to prepare the government for trial in two pending cases. The only support for this contention is the existence of two prior indictments, one in the same district charging controlled substance offenses and the other in the Southern District of Florida charging tax offenses. The United States Attorney advises that the current grand jury is investigating Cid for his possible role in a continuing criminal enterprise and additional violations. The grand jury need not stop its investigation of an accused following an indictment. United States v. Ruppel, 666 F.2d 261, 268 (5th Cir.1982). Cid makes no showing of abuse to overcome the presumption of regularity. See Beverly v. United States, 468 F.2d 732, 743 (5th Cir.1972). The United States is not obliged to make a preliminary showing of the proper use of process in a grand jury proceeding. In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 565 F.2d 318, 320 (5th Cir.1977).
Cid contends that compelling him to sign the consent is a seizure of his person in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That argument was not made to the district court and need not be considered here, but we see no merit to it. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1972) (appearance before grand jury and compelled production of voice exemplar held not to be seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment).
AFFIRMED.
. The full text of the consent follows:
Consent Directive
I, Juan Antonio Cid-Molina or Juan Cid, of the State of Florida in the United States of America, do hereby direct any bank or trust company at which I have a bank account of any kind or at which a corporation has a bank account of any kind upon which I am authorized to draw, specifically including the Bank of Nova Scotia and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, and its officers, employees and agents, to disclose all information and deliver copies of all documents of every nature in your possession or control which relate to the said bank accounts to any attorney of the United States Department of Justice, and to give evidence relevant thereto, pursuant to an investigation being conducted by the Grand Jury for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette, Louisiana, and this shall be irrevocable authority for doing so. This direction has been executed pursuant to that certain order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in the aforesaid case, dated __This direction is intended to apply to the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law of the Cayman Islands, and shall be construed as consent with respect thereto as the same shall apply to any of the bank accounts for which I may be a relevant principal.
DATE: _
JUAN ANTONIO CID-MOLINA JUAN CID

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