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:
Kobert Paul PHILIPPS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 71-1513.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 17, 1972.
Decided April 12, 1972.
Robert Paul Philipps, pro se.
Harold O. Bullis, U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Paul Philipps was convicted of contempt of court for knowingly disobeying and resisting the lawful process, order and command of the court. He was fined $500.00 and given a suspended sentence of six months in custody. Phil-ipps contends that the conviction and sentence were unlawful and in violation of his constitutional rights.
Notwithstanding Philipps’ failure to comply with the rules of this Court in filing his appeal, we have examined the record in an effort to ascertain if any error was committed by the trial court. Our review convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court committed no error except that discussed below.
The trial court erred in imposing sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 401 provides that “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, * * * contempt of its authority * * (Emphasis added.) This section has been construed to prohibit the imposition of both imprisonment and fine. Board of Education v. York, 429 F.2d 66, 70 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Temple, 372 F.2d 795 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 961, 87 S.Ct. 1024, 18 L.Ed.2d 110 (1967); United States v. Schiffer, 351 F.2d 91, 96 (6th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 1914, 16 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1966), rehearing denied, 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 12, 17 L.Ed.2d 121 (1967); In re Osborne, 344 F.2d 611, 616 (9th Cir. 1965). The case must, therefore, be remanded.
The question arises whether, on remand, Philipps would be entitled to a jury trial under Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966). In Cheff, the Supreme Court ruled that “sentences exceeding six months for criminal contempt may not be imposed by federal courts absent a jury trial or waiver thereof.” 384 U.S. at 380, 86 S.Ct. at 1526. If there were any possibility that Philipps might be required, at some future time, to serve the six months’ sentence in addition to paying the $500.00 fine, we have little doubt that a jury trial on remand would be required under Cheff, Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), and Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969). However, the commitment in this ease reads:
“ * * -x- [T]he defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General * * * for imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months, commencing at Twelve o’clock noon of this date, said sentence is suspended and defendant is fined Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), payable to the United States of America, in installments of not less than $100.00 a month * *
While the wording of this sentence is uncommon and somewhat ambiguous, we construe it as nullifying, for all practical effect, the six months’ sentence. Thus, for Cheff purposes, this offense was treated as petty by the trial court, cf., Frank v. United States, supra, and Phil-ipps is not entitled to a jury trial.
The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to modify the sentence in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 401 and this opinion, by striking either the $500.00 fine or the six months’ suspended sentence.
. Following the decision in Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), the Supreme Court of Illinois, on remand, granted a new trial. This result appears to be inconsistent with United States v. R. L. Polk and Company, 438 F.2d 377 (6th Cir. 1971). We are persuaded that the Illinois Supreme Court’s action more properly reflects the intentions of the Supreme Court, particularly as expressed in Bloom and Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (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: 1