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:
Charles Wesley JOHNSON, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.
No. 6655.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 18, 1961.
Stephen A. Hellerstein, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
George T. Van Bebber, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges, and KERR, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of Kansas denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, discharging the writ and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the Warden. Seeking to be released from the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, appellant petitioned for habeas corpus on the ground that an error in the computation of good time due him resulted in the advancement of the date of his reconditional release from November 6, 1960, to September 24, 1961.
On January 16, 1952, appellant commenced serving a nine year sentence, amounting to 3,285 days. After serving 2,139 days he was credited with 864 days of statutory good time and 282 days of industrial good time and was conditionally released on November 26,1958. At the time of his release there remained 1,146 days of the nine year sentence not served by appellant. On June 3, 1959, he was arrested as a conditional release violator and he is now serving out the balance of his nine year term. Upon the rearrest of appellant, the record clerk noted that appellant owed only 844 days as a violator and gave the re-conditional release date as April 1, 1961. On December 1, 1959, the prison officials recomputed appellant’s good time, showed 1,146 days as the total sentence for the conditional release violation, allowed 301 days good time, and determined September 24, 1961, as the proper reconditional release date.
The District Court found that such recomputation by the prison officials on December 1, 1959, was not in error; that due to his conditional release violation appellant is required to serve the balance of his nine year term; and that 1,146 days remained to be served by appellant, less good time earned during his violation term.
Appellant buttresses his appeal to this court with the contention that the 1959 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 4161 has been applied retroactively. This contention is without merit. The recomputation by the prison officials on December 1, 1959, was merely a corrective measure. The applicability of Public Law 86-259 is entirely foreign to this case and merits no further consideration.
Appellant’s principal ground for appeal involves the method of computation of statutory good time. By his formula he would have earned 562 days of statutory good time instead of 864 days, being a difference of 302 days. He argues that he was prematurely released; that upon his violation of the conditional release he forfeits only the 562 days of statutory good time earned as of November 26, 1958; and that the 302 days prematurely credited to him should be deducted from the 1,146 days not served to arrive at his violation term of 844 days.
Appellant’s contention is untenable. Mathematical gyrations must not be permitted to obscure the crux of the matter, namely, the amount of time remaining to be served on a sentence at the time the conditional release is made. No sound reason exists to warrant a deviation from the established rule that appellant may be required to serve the balance of the 1,146 days in his nine year sentence.
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4161.
. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4162.
. Yates v. Looney, 10 Cir., 250 F.2d 956; Taylor v. Daniels, 10 Cir., 284 F.2d 135; Wooten v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 265 F.2d 211; 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207.

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