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. Henry Grady YOUNG, Jr., Appellant.
No. 77-1346.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 12, 1977.
Decided Jan. 11, 1978.
Michael P. Shea, St. Charles, Mo., argued and filed brief, for appellant.
Stephen B. Higgins, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), and Barry A. Short (former U. S. Atty.), St. Louis, Mo., filed brief, for appellee.
Before LAY, BRIGHT, and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
Henry Grady Young, Jr., appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 (1970) for knowing possession of property stolen from an interstate shipment. He argues that the district court erred in overruling his motion for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case. We affirm.
At approximately 9:30 p. m. on February 2, 1977, police officer Arthur Williams was investigating a tractor-trailer unit suspiciously parked on a St. Louis street. As he approached the scene in his unmarked police car, he observed appellant Young standing on a nearby corner. Young, upon seeing the car approaching, immediately ran down the sidewalk past a Chevrolet automobile parked approximately thirty feet away from the trailer, slamming the trunk shut as he ran by. Before the trunk was closed, Williams observed two large cardboard boxes inside. Williams apprehended both Young and Nathaniel Franklin, who was standing in the rear of the trailer. A search of the Chevrolet trunk revealed two cartons, each containing four Panasonic Citizens Band AM/FM radios. Further investigation disclosed that the radios had been removed from the tractor-trailer, that Franklin owned the Chevrolet, and that Franklin and Young had spent the evening together. Young and Franklin were tried together and convicted by a jury.
On appeal, Young argues that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain the “possession” element of the charge against him. He further argues that for purposes of this appeal we should consider only the evidence presented by the Government in its case in chief.
The law is to the contrary. In deciding whether the Government’s evidence is sufficient to withstand a motion for acquittal, this court may examine the record as a whole, including evidence put on by the defendant. United States v. Davis, 542 F.2d 743, 746 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1004, 97 S.Ct. 537, 50 L.Ed.2d 616 (1976); United States v. Geelan, 509 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 999, 95 S.Ct. 2395, 44 L.Ed.2d 666 (1975). A conviction can rest solely on circumstantial evidence, which is intrinsically as probative as direct evidence. United States v. Lambros, 564 F.2d 26 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1360 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977).
The evidence, viewed as a whole, was sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty. The jury could reasonably infer from Young’s running to the vehicle and closing the lid that he exercised joint possession of the car and the stolen merchandise. Young’s testimony at trial that he had spent the evening with Franklin was inconsistent with his earlier statements to F.B.I. agents, a fact the jury could have considered in judging Young’s credibility.
We affirm the conviction.

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