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. Harry Blake JOHNSON, Appellant.
No. 71-1056.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Aug. 31, 1971.
Decided Nov. 26, 1971.
Robert L. Dolbeare, Richmond, Va. (court-appointed counsel) [Obenshain, Hinnant & Dolbeare, Richmond, Va., on brief] for appellant.
Rodney Sager, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the Eastern District of Virginia (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on the brief) for appellee.
Before BRYAN, CRAVEN, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Harry Blake Johnson appeals his conviction of conspiracy and interstate travel in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 1952. His principal assignment of error is the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence seized under the authority of a search warrant issued by a state justice of the peace. Johnson contends the evidence should have been excluded because Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(a) requires that the state officer issuing a search warrant be a judge of a court of record. He makes no claim that the warrant or the search and seizure violated the fourth amendment. He relies on Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74, 69 S.Ct. 1372, 93 L.Ed. 1819 (1948), Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927), and Navarro v. United States, 400 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1968), which hold that where federal officers participate, the search must be conducted according to federal standards. The district court admitted the evidence because in its opinion the federal agents did not participate in the search.
The evidence disclosed that an informant told the F.B.I. of gambling operations that had come to his attention. He also notified the state police, who conducted an investigation. The state officers obtained a search warrant, searched the gamblers’ premises, seized and marked the evidence and retained custody of it. They also prosecuted charges against the operators of the gambling establishment in a state court. Later when the federal case was tried, they testified about the search and laid the foundation for the introduction into evidence of the articles that they had seized.
Federal agents conferred with the state officers about the investigation, but they did not assist in obtaining the warrant. Three federal agents were present when the state officers searched the premises. They did not, however, join in the search, seize any evidence, or interrogate any suspects. We believe the district judge correctly held that the federal agents were present simply as observers and that they did not participate in the search. Cf. United States v. Coronna, 420 F.2d 1091 (5th Cir. 1970); Stonehill v. United States, 405 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S.Ct. 2102, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969).
Johnson also complains that his motion for a severance and mistrial should have been granted after the other defendants changed their pleas to guilty during the trial. We think the court’s instructions to the jury about this unexpected occurrence fully protected Johnson, and we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion.
Affirmed.
. Federal Kule of Criminal Procedure 41(a) provides:
“(a) Authority to Issue Warrant. A search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued by a judge of the United States or of a state, commonwealth or territorial court of record or by a United States commissioner within the district wherein the property sought is located.”

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