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:
Theodore M. SPRINGFIELD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20424.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 11, 1968.
Decided Oct. 2, 1968.
Mr. Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., Washington, D. C., (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Carl S. Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Wright and Leventhal, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of carnal knowledge of a girl under sixteen years of age. On brief, he argued that the instructions regarding the elements of the offense were defective, that the instructions on reasonable doubt were confusing and that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the victim’s testimony. We have considered these contentions and find them without merit.
On oral argument a new issue was raised. Appellant contended for the first time that his case had been improperly treated as a capital one and that he had been prejudiced thereby. Appellant’s claim that his offense was not a capital one was based on the statutory language or, alternatively, on the proposition that capital punishment for statutory rape would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Since oral argument yet another complication has been added. In United States v. Jackson, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the penalty provisions of a statute which permitted only the jury to inflict capital punishment on the ground that these provisions inhibited defendants from exercising their Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The penalty provisions of the D.C. rape statute suffer from the same constitutional infirmity.
We conclude, however, that appellant was not prejudiced by the fact that his ease was treated as a capital one. Appellant’s allegations of prejudice are two. First he argues that he was prejudiced because people opposed to capital punishment were systematically excluded from the jury which found him guilty. But this contention was rejected in Witherspoon v. State of Illinois, and Bumper v. State of North Carolina, where the Supreme Court held that a jury from which people who opposed the death penalty were excluded could not impose the death sentence, but could determine guilt or innocence.
Appellant’s second claim is that because the jury improperly had the op-* tion to impose the death penalty it. may have compromised the verdict on guilt or innocence. In other words, some jurors who initially believed appellant was innocent may have agreed to find him guilty in return for other jurors’ giving up their demand for the death penalty.
On the facts of this case we find it overwhelmingly improbable that appellant was the victim of such a compromise. The prosecution never requested the death penalty, or even adverted to it. The trial judge gave it only a one-sentence mention in his charge to the jury. And the details of the crime were not such as to make it likely that the jurors seriously considered imposing the death penalty. Moreover, the evidence did not support a conviction for any lesser included offense, against which the jury might have been influenced by the judge’s passing mention of the death penalty. A statutory rape had been consummated, and the only real issue in the case was whether appellant was the perpetrator. On that question the evidence was compelling.
Since we find no prejudice, the decision below is affirmed.
. The case was treated as a capital one in that persons who opposed capital punishment were excluded from the jury and the jury was instructed that it could bring in the death penalty. Appellant was not given the death penalty, however.
. Appellant was convicted under D.C.Oode § 22-2S01, which provides:
Whoever has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will, or carnally knows and abuses a female child under sixteen years of age, shall be imprisoned for not more than thirty years: Provided, That in any case of rape the jury may add to their verdict, if it be guilty, the words ‘with the death penalty,’ in which case the punishment shall be death by electrocution: Provided further, That if the jury fail to agree as to the imnishment the verdict of guilty shall be received and the punishment shall be imprisonment as provided in this section.
Appellant contends that the proviso “in any case of rape” must refer to common law (forcible) rape if it is not redundant. But the fact that the entire chapter is entitled “rape” cuts against this interpretation.
In Sanselo v. United States, 44 App.D.C. 508 (1915), this court held that statutory rape was punishable by death.
. See Rudolph v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 889, 84 S.Ct. 155, 11 L.Ed.2d 119 (1963) (dissenting opinion of Goldberg, J.). Statu- . tory rapes occur very frequently and are rarely prosecuted.
. 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968).
. Bailey v. United States, 128 U.S.App. D.C. 354, 389 F.2d 305 (decided Sept. 13, 1968).
. 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968).
. 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).
. Cf. Bailey v. United States, supra note 5 (dissenting opinion of Faliy, J.).

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