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:
BARNES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 14179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 13, 1954.
James H. Garcia, Albert M. Garcia, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.
Jack D. H. Hays, U. S. Atty., William A. Holohan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
BONE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a verdict of guilty on four counts charging appellant with bringing into the United States certain aliens who had not been duly admitted by an immigration inspector of the United States. The questions presented are (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty and (2) whether the lower court erred in admitting testimony of conversations conducted in Spanish as against appellant who could not understand that language.
Although there was some conflict in the evidence, the jury resolved these conflicts against appellant and chose to follow appellee’s view of the evidence. The aliens who were illegally brought into this country testified that they were approached in the town of Mexicali by one Raul. (Appellant testified that Raul was with him on this trip to Mexico.) Raul brought the witnesses to appellant and another man, where they negotiated and planned entry for these aliens, into the United States, for a price to be paid to the Americans. Raul acted as translator in all of the communications between the Mexicans and the Americans. Later Barnes and the other American drove the Mexicans to San Luis, Mexico, and obtained some money from the Mexicans. The Mexicans were driven across the international boundary at a place other than the legal place of entry. Appellant drove one of the cars as far as San Luis, and was with the group again on the United States side of the boundary, in Yuma, Arizona.
Notwithstanding some conflicts in evidence, and appellant’s own testimony which is in direct conflict, there is ample evidence, aside from evidence of conversations, which supports the verdict of guilty.
The evidence of conversations carried on between Raul and the Mexicans, in Spanish, was not objected to at the trial on the ground here urged, i. e., that appellant cannot be bound by a conversation which he cannot understand. Since the trial court was not given an opportunity to correct any error which was present in this situation, we would not ordinarily consider the point here. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 51 and 52(a), 18 U.S.C.A. However, appellant urges that substantial injustice will result if he is not permitted to raise this point, for the first time, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52(b).
Appellant brought the interpreter into Mexico and was satisfied to have Raul, his own companion, act as interpreter. He made no effort at the trial to show why be should not be bound by that interpreter. Moreover, the entire record (even excluding the testimony as to what was said) contains sufficient proof that appellant participated and was paid for his part in the illegal bringing of aliens into the United States. However, we have considered the error here urged and we cannot agree that the admission of the testimony introduced any substantial prejudice against appellant. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52 (b); United States v. Kirby, 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 101; Himmelfarb v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949,175 F.2d 924; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 181; Samples v. United States, 5 Cir., 121 F.2d 263.
Judgment 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