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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Walter Brown SPEARS, Appellant.
No. 15206.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1971.
Decided May 10, 1971.
Fred Warren Bennett, Washington, D. C. (court-appointed counsel), for appellant.
Jean G. Rogers, Asst. U. S. Atty. (George Beall U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Convicted on three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b), and (d), the defendant complains of a four-month delay between the discovery of evidence of his participation and the indictment, the showing of photograph spreads including his picture to witnesses without the presence of counsel at a time when he was not under arrest for, or charged with, the offense, and the questioning of government witnesses on re-direct examination concerning line-up identifications. He also claims the trial court erroneously ruled that if he should present a defense witness to testify that he did not participate in the robbery, the Government would be permitted to impeach the witness by use of his prior statement naming Spears as a participant. We find no error.
On the Government’s concession, we remand the case in order that the judgments on the first two counts may be vacated. In remanding we imply no criticism of the district judge’s original imposition of three concurrent sentences on the three counts. Had only a single sentence been imposed, and the judgment supporting that sentence been reversed without disturbing the convictions on the remaining counts, difficulties could have arisen on a remand, which the action taken obviated. However, the duplicitous sentences should not be left in effect after the conviction has become final.
We have not adopted the theory that on conviction of multiple counts all merge into one. United States v. Law-renson, 4 Cir., 298 F.2d 880. The considerations which weigh against multiple punishment for technically distinct offenses which arise out of precisely the same criminal conduct are not avoided by allowing the trial judge the added flexibility in selecting among ultimate sentencing options which the practice followed below gives him, so long as, -ultimately, only one of the sentences is left in effect.
Affirmed and remanded.

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