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:
Robert Newell SPRY, Appellant, v. E. J. OBERHAUSER, Appellee.
No. 20493.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
May 20, 1966.
Robert Newell Spry, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Wm. E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Robert Newell Spry, a prisoner in the California Institution for Men at Chino, from an order entered September 14,1965, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, denying his petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
After reviewing the appellant’s petition, we agree with the District Court that it appears from the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to the Writ.
According to the petition, appellant was convicted in 1959 of the crime of burglary in the Orange County Superior Court. In March of 1965, he was convicted in the Los Angeles Superior Court for attempted robbery in violation of Section 664 of the California Penal Code. After serving approximately four years on the first offense, appellant was released in May of 1963 to serve three years and three months on parole.
Appellant first alleges that parole on the first offense was delayed one year because of action taken by the disciplinary committee of the institution. The allegation in regard to the action of the disciplinary committee does not in this case present a justiciable question. Roberts v. Pegelow, 313 F.2d 548, 550-551 (4th Cir. 1963); see also concurring opinion in Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963); Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 829, 72 S.Ct. 53, 96 L.Ed. 627. In any event, this question would appear to be moot since the appellant was finally granted parole and his present detention appears to be as a result of his conviction in March of 1965 on the second offense.
Appellant’s second claim relates to his second conviction. As to this he alleged that he was “compelled” to enter an illegal line-up before preliminary examination and arraignment. He does not allege or claim that the line-up led to any evidence that was or could be used against him. There was no appeal from this conviction for the reason that he entered a plea of guilty. He also alleges that the line-up denied him the right to be taken before a committing magistrate without unnecessary delay in violation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant is attempting to go behind his plea of guilty merely because he was put in a line-up. It was said in Wallace v. Heinze, 351 F.2d 39, 40 (9th Cir. 1965), quoting from Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696-697 (9th Cir. 1961) as follows:
“The conviction and sentence which follow a plea of guilty are based solely and entirely upon said plea and not upon any evidence which may have been improperly acquired by the prosecuting authorities.”
The alleged violation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is without merit. Said Rules are only applicable to federal courts.
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: 1