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. Joseph Frank SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 116, Docket 27114.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 1961.
Decided Dec. 21, 1961.
Joseph Frank Sierra, pro se.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City, and Gerald E. Paley and Arthur I. Rosett, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, for appellee.
Before CLARK, FRIENDLY, and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the district court’s refusal to set aside his sentence as a second offender for the sale of heroin. He was first convicted in 1954. In 1957 on his plea of guilty to another heroin sale, he was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 174 as a second offender to a 12-year term in prison on each of two counts, the sentences to run concurrently. This is the sentence here under attack. The statute had been amended in 1956 to increase the penalties for subsequent offenders provided in the initial Act of 1951.
All of the points now urged by defendant are well settled against him. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 is not ex post facto' as to the 1957 conviction and sentence. Cooper v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 114 F.Supp. 464, 465; Beland v. United States, 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 795, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 676, 63 S.Ct. 157, 87 L.Ed. 543; Wey Him Fong v. United States, 9 Cir., 287 F.2d 525, certiorari denied 366 U.S. 971, 81 S.Ct. 1937, 6 L.Ed.2d 1261. Denial of parole to a narcotics prisoner does not deprive him of the equal protection of the law. Lathem v. United States, 5 Cir., 259 F.2d 393; Gallego v. United States, 9 Cir., 276 F.2d 914. A previous conviction may be considered as a prior offense, even if it resulted in only a suspended sentence. United States v. Rivera, 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 88, 89; Tanzer v. United States, 9 Cir., 278 F.2d 137, certiorari denied 364 U.S. 863, 81 S.Ct. 103, 5 L.Ed.2d 85. And the concurrent sentences on the two counts did not place defendant in double jeopardy as even consecutive sentences would not. Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405; United States v. Johnson, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 404, certiorari denied Johnson v. United States, 347 U.S. 928, 74 S.Ct. 531, 98 L.Ed. 1080.
Order 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