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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny R. YOUNGBLOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-6092.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 25, 1991.
Johnny R. Youngblood, pro se.
Timothy D. Leonard, U.S. Atty., and Leslie M. Kaestner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Johnny Young-blood appeals an order of the district court denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Although Youngblood raises four separate issues on appeal, the ground for each contention is that 21 U.S.C. § 812, et seq., and 21 C.F.R. § 1308.22 specifically exclude methamphetamine from the schedules of controlled substances, and, therefore, he did not violate the Controlled Substances Act. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Youngblood, along with codefendant, Alan Raz, was charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), involving the distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), possession of a firearm during and relating to drug trafficking. Youngblood entered a plea of guilty to one count of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and one count of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was sentenced to sixty months and twenty-seven months, respectively, with the sentences to run consecutively.
Youngblood asserts that methamphetamine is not a controlled substance and, therefore, should not be subject to the Controlled Substances Act. To arrive at this conclusion, Youngblood relies on 21 U.S.C. § 811(g)(1), which provides that
[t]he Attorney General shall by regulation exclude any non-narcotic substance from a schedule if such substance may, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, be lawfully sold over the counter without a prescription.
Appellant next asserts that both Rynal and Vicks Inhaler nose sprays contain methamphetamine isomers and, therefore, methamphetamine is sold over the counter and is exempt from the Controlled Substances Act.
In United States v. Roark, 924 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir.1991), the Eighth Circuit addressed precisely this issue and concluded that methamphetamine is “properly classified as a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1308.12(d).” Id. at 1428. We agree. The flaw in Youngblood’s contention is that the FDA did not approve methamphetamine for over-the-counter sale. Instead, the FDA approved the Ry-nal and Vicks inhalers, which contain a combination of ingredients, including a diluted isomer of methamphetamine.
Under 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(d), methamphetamine or its isomers is a Schedule II controlled substance unless specially excepted. The FDA has granted a specific exception for the ingredients contained in the Rynal and Vicks inhalers. However, other uses or combinations of methamphet-amines or its isomers remain controlled substances under Schedule II until the FDA approves and authorizes a specific exception. Thus, we conclude that methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.-12(d). See also United States v. Kendall, 887 F.2d 240 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Schrock, 855 F.2d 327 (6th Cir.1988).
Youngblood’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The district court order denying Youngblood’s motion is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

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