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:
Albert ADELMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 14360.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 1, 1954.
Samuel T. Bull, Reno, Nev., for appellant.
Madison B. Graves, U. S. Atty., Franklin P. R. Rittenhouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
DENMAN, Chief Judge.
Adelman appeals from a judgment in a jury tried case sentencing him to ten years in the penitentiary on an indictment charging that he did, after importation, knowingly and unlawfully receive, conceal and facilitate the transportation of a certain narcotic drug, to-wit, approximately one grain of heroin, which said heroin, as the defendant then and there well knew, had been imported into the United States of America contrary to law, in violation of Section 174, Title 21 United States Code Annotated.
The concluding sentence of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 reads:
“Whenever on trial for a violation of this subdivision the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”
The accused took the stand but made no effort to sustain his burden of proof that the heroin was not imported or that he otherwise was entitled to possess it under other provisions of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act.
The sole contention of Adelman is that the District Court erred in denying his motion for an acquittal on the ground that the United States failed to produce evidence to constitute a prima facie case against him of the possession of the heroin. The evidence is as follows:
Adelman and one Allen drove from San Francisco to Reno to gamble. They took a room at the Pony Express Motel in Sparks, just outside of Reno. After a night of gambling they drove to their motel followed by four police officers who were travelling in two automobiles.
When Adelman and Allen got out of their car and had walked a short distance toward their room they were stopped by the police officers. One of them then “frisked” Adelman for the possession of concealed weapons. The four officers, Allen and appellant then proceeded to Adelman’s motel room. In the course of this procession two of the officers, Eberling and Backer, saw appellant flip a tiny package from his hand to his left onto a driveway. The other two officers did not see Adelman flip anything to the ground. About an hour and a half was consumed searching the motel room.
No one investigated this small package which looked like a piece of paper until approximately one hour and a half after the two officers testified seeing it thrown to the driveway. On leaving the motel they again passed the package and Adelman tried to conceal it by dropping a newspaper on it. Eberling then picked up the package and took it to the police station where it was opened. It contained heroin.
Appellant points out that two of the officers testified they did not see the package thrown but this is explained on the ground that they were not in position to see it. Adelman denied throwing the package; his credibility was impeached on cross examination when he admitted a prior felony conviction. Appellant also argues there is no proof the object which was flipped to the ground was the same object later picked up. But there is evidence in the testimony of his attempt to conceal it by dropping the newspaper.
“The verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680. Accord: Woodward Laboratories v. United States, 9 Cir., 198 F.2d 995; United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834. We think the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment is 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