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. Raymond Lee RUST, Appellant.
No. 81-1017.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 20, 1981.
Decided June 9, 1981.
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1981.
J. Whitfield Moody, U. S. Atty., Michael A. Jones, Asst. U. S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., for appellee.
John Edward Cash, Bunch, O’Sullivan, Sandifar & Hill, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMIL-LIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Raymond Lee Rust was charged in a two-count indictment with attempting to enter a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with intent to commit larceny and with entering the same bank for the same purpose, both in violation of the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 2113(a). Rust waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted by the district court on both counts. On appeal, Rust argues that the court erred in refusing to suppress certain physical evidence seized after his arrest and in entering judgments of conviction and imposing sentence on both counts of the indictment. We remand with directions to the district court.
I
Rust claims that there was no probable cause for his arrest ahd, therefore, the evidence seized incident to the arrest, without a warrant, should have been suppressed by the district court. The facts, as stipulated, are that the Mindenmines, Missouri, town marshal received a telephone call at about midnight on Sunday, August 3, 1980. The caller informed the marshal that he had just seen two men with flashlights inside the Bank of Minden. The marshal drove to the bank and discovered that the lock cylinder in the bank’s front door had been twisted loose. He walked around to an alley between the bank and a mobile home which was used as an office, and saw Rust seated on the front porch of the mobile home and another man walking back and forth near the porch. When the marshal approached, the two men fled in different directions. As Rust ran, the marshal saw that he was wearing gloves and a full-face ski mask. The marshal ordered Rust to stop and, when he continued to run, he fired a warning shot from his shotgun. After again ordering him to stop, the marshal fired a second shot at Rust. Although he was not struck by the shotgun blast, Rust tripped and fell. The marshal apprehended Rust and searched him, finding a set of lock-picking tools in his pocket and a walkie-talkie in a harness around his body.
There can be no doubt that the above circumstances provided the marshal with probable cause to arrest Rust. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained incident to the arrest.
II
At the conclusion of Rust’s trial, the district court found him guilty as charged on both counts of the indictment. At the sentencing hearing, the court first announced that he would sentence Rust to ten years imprisonment on Count I (attempted entry) and five years on Count II (entry), the sentences to run consecutively. Upon being informed by the Assistant United States Attorney that the consecutive sentences “may be in conflict,” the court sentenced Rust to fifteen years on each count, the sentences to run concurrent with each other. Rust contends that the trial court erred by entering judgments of conviction and imposing sentences on both counts. We agree.
It is clear that a defendant may be charged with committing a completed offense and with attempting to commit the same offense, and those charges may be submitted to the trier of fact if evidence supports both offenses. It is also clear, however, that a defendant may not be convicted of both the attempt and the completed crime, because all the elements of the attempt are included in the completed offense and a dual conviction would amount to double jeopardy. See O'Clair v. United States, 470 F.2d 1199 (1st Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 2741, 37 L.Ed.2d 148 (1973). Moreover, it has been held that the Bank Robbery Act permits only one conviction for a single illegal act. See id.; Wright v. United States, 519 F.2d 13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 932, 96 S.Ct. 285, 46 L.Ed.2d 262 (1975). Consequently, the district court erred in entering judgments of conviction against Rust on both counts of the indictment.
Rust asks this Court to vacate the judgment on Count I and direct the district court to sentence him to the original sentence imposed on Count II — five years imprisonment. While we agree that one of the convictions must be vacated, we do not agree that we must limit the district court’s options as Rust proposes. In our view, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing a fifteen-year sentence on a single count, despite his initial decision to sentence Rust to a total of fifteen years on the two counts.
The cause is remanded to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment of conviction on one of the two counts. The judgment of conviction and sentence on the remaining count is affirmed.

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