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:
DRYDEN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 12658.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1944.
H. D. Kissenger, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before THOMAS and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges and MOORE, District Judge.
THOMAS, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 400, and he appeals.
The indictment in one count charged, in the language of the statute, that the appellant transported a girl under the age of 18 years, to-wit, IS years of age, in interstate commerce upon the line and route of a common carrier, from Loveland, Oklahoma, to Kansas City, Missouri, with the intent and for the purpose of inducing, enticing and compelling her to engage in prostitution.
After trial the defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced “to a period of 10 years in an Institution to be designated by the Attorney General; said sentence to begin upon the expiration of any sentence heretofore imposed, particularly the sentence of three years imposed by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.”
'The case was submitted in this court on written brief for the appellant. The only point argued is that the sentence is excessive, and no authorities in support of appellant’s contention are cited. It is argued that the appellant is 63 years of age and that the 10-year sentence imposed by the trial court added to the 3-year sentence imposed by the state court makes 13 years, which is beyond the punishment intended by Congress, “and at least said terms should have been to run concurrently.” The record does not disclose the nature of the case, referred to in the state court, but we may take judicial notice that it was not a prosecution for violation of the federal Criminal Code.
The statute provides that upon a conviction for its violation a defendant “shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.” The discretion. thus delegated by Congress is committed to the trial court, not to this court, and a sentence within the statutory limit is not reviewable, Feinberg v. United States, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 955, 958, “unless the penalty prescribed is clearly and manifestly cruel and unusual.” Welch v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 132 F.2d 434, 436. Here the sentence imposed is not only within the statutory limits, but, considering the aggravated nature of the crime, the court cannot say that it is cruel and unusual.
Although the alleged excessive penalty is the only error argued on this appeal, we have, because of the age of the appellant and the unusual and evil nature of the offense, reviewed the entire record; and finding no error the judgment 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