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:
Clifford Travis MILLS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 24042.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
July 7, 1967.
M. T. McDonald, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Douglas M. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Morton L. Susman, U. S. Átty., Fred L. Hartman, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before RIVES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Mills was convicted on a one count indictment for knowingly causing to be transported in interstate commerce a falsely made, forged, altered and counterfeited security in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. From the judgment and sentence which were entered upon the jury verdict, Mills has appealed. We affirm.
Mills asserts that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because while he was under arrest and in custody of the Houston Police Department he made certain incriminating statements to an F.B.I. agent that were later admitted in evidence over Mills’ objection that there was no effective warning given him concerning his right to counsel and his privilege against self incrimination.
The trial of this case took place before Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and the standard to be applied is the voluntary nature vel non of the statements concerned. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882. Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, is, however, applicable since the trial took place after this decision. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra. The record is devoid of evidence of any coercion whatsoever. Mills “ * * * effectively waived his absolute constitutional right to remain silent” prior to making any incriminating statement. Escobedo, 378 U.S. at 491, 84 S.Ct. at 1765. While he was not offered counsel as Miranda would now require, unlike Escobedo he neither requested nor was denied counsel. We conclude that the statement was voluntary and that there was a valid waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to consult counsel. Hintz v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 937.
Mills also contends that his motion for acquittal should have been granted because the government’s evidence (independent of Mills’ admissions to the F.B.I. agent) was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti. We disagree. There was evidence that the money order was cashed by Mills. The money order had been previously taken from its lawful possessor in blank and been falsely and without authority filled in so that it could be cashed. As we said in French v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 232 F.2d 736, “* * * the phrase corpus delicti includes but two elements: first, the fact of injury or loss; and secondly, the fact of somebody’s criminality as the cause of the injury or loss. Furthermore, Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101, 45 A.L.R.2d 1308, makes it clear that corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the confessions of the accused, to establish these two elements which constitute the corpus delicti.” The evidence here abundantly meets these requirements.
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