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:
FELTON v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
November 9, 1925.)
No. 4447.
1. Criminal law <§=>l 115(1) — Sufficiency of affl. davit or search warrant not reviewabie, where copy of neither is in record.
Where record does not contain copy of either affidavit or search warrant, sufficiency thereof is not reviewabie.
2. Criminal law <§=>901— Error in denying directed verdict at close of government’s evidence waived by defendant’s ' offer of evidence thereafter.
’Error, if any, in overruling defendant’s motion for directed verdict at close of government’s evidence, is waived by defendant’s offer of. evidence thereafter.
3. intoxicating liquors <§=>236(61/2, 19) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture and possession, and for possession of property designed for manufacture.
Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture and possession of intoxicating liquor, and for possession of property designed for unlawful manufacture.
4. Criminal law <§=>-1169(7) — Errors, if any,' growing out of alleged invalidity of search warrant, held harmless, in view of testimony of one defendant.
In prosecution for unlawful manufacture and possession of liquor and -unlawful possession of property designed for manufacture, where one defendant, placed on stand by his codefendant, testified that there was a still on his codefendant’s premises, but that he (witness) had nothing to do with it, held, errors, if ány, growing out of invalidity of search warrant, were not prejudicial.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky; Charles I. Dawson, Judge.
H. B. Felton was convicted of unlawful manufacture and possession of intoxicating liquor and of possessing property designed for unlawful manufacture, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
J. L. Richardson, of Louisville, Ky. (W. G-. Dearing, of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
W. S. Ball, U. S. Atty., of Louisville, Ky. (Lilburn Phelps and Claude Hudgins, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DONAHUE and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
DONAHUE, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error was convicted on all three counts of an information. The first count charged the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, the second count with having in his possession property designed for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and the third count the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months in the Jefferson eounty jail.
It is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the search warrant was invalid, for the reason that the affidavit did not state that intoxicating liquor was being sold on the premises searched. Staker v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 312. The record in this case does not contain a copy either of affidavit or the search warrant. For this reason we do not think the sufficiency of the affidavit or the validity of the search warrant is presented by this record. Even if it were presented, the plaintiff in error did not rely upon his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by the government, but, on the contrary, offered as a witness Theodore Simmones, who was jointly charged with him in each count of the information.
Simmones testified that he was employed by Felton to collect city garbage and feed over 40 hogs, and that in addition to this he worked on the truck farm of about 12 acres; that he had no connection whatever with the still, but that there was a still on Felton’s premises; that he saw Felton come in with the truck loaded with sugar and meal, four or five sacks, of about 100 pounds each. This testimony of Simmones, if believed by the jury, was in and of itself sufficient to prove the guilt of Felton beyond a reasonable doubt. This witness being called on behalf of both defendants, and without any claim on the part of counsel for Felton that they were taken by surprise by this witness’ testimony, and without offering any other proof tending to establish a different state of facts, there is no apparent reason why the jury should not have accepted this evidence, at least in so far as it tended to prove the guiit of Felton. It appears from the verdict, however, that the jury did accept as true all of the testimony of this witness, and returned a verdict of not guilty as to Simmones and guilty as to Felton.
For this reason, the errors complained of, oven if they were exhibited by the record, would not be prejudicial.
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