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:
BLOOMBAUM v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6764.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 15, 1954.
Decided April 5, 1954.
Milton Bloombaum, pro se.
Herbert H. Hubbard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (George Cochran Doub, Baltimore, Md., U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a plea of guilty to an indictment charging appellant with having acquired a quantity of marihuana in violation of law. The indictment charged that appellant “being then and there a transferee of marihuana required to pay the transfer tax imposed by Title 26, Section 2590(a) (2), United States Code, did acquire and otherwise obtain a quantity of Cannabis sativa L., commonly known as marihuana, to wit, twenty-one thousand eight hundred and five (21,805) grains, without having paid the tax on the transfer of said marihuana to him made.”
The appellant being represented by counsel of his own choosing voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and was thereupon sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In his motion to vacate the sentence, he contends that he was a user of marihuana, that his only source of supply was through illegitimate channels and that he was not one required to register and pay tax. It is a sufficient answer to this that the indictment expressly charged that appellant was a “transferee of marihuana required to pay the transfer tax” and that he pleaded guilty to the charge, being represented at the time by counsel. He may not, thereafter attack the sentence on the ground that he was not in fact guilty of the charge contained in the indictment, as a voluntary plea of guilty is an admission of guilt and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. United States v. Sturm, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 413, 416. If he had any defense to the charge he should have presented it at the time, and not by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which lies only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack. Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194; Crowe v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 799; Birtch v. United States, 4 Cir., 173 F.2d 316, 317. As said in the case last cited:
“It is true of motions made under this section, as we held of motions in the nature of applications for writs of error coram nobis under the prior practice in the appeal before us, that they ‘may not be used to review the proceedings of the trial as upon appeal or writ of error, but merely to test their validity when judged upon the face of the record or by constitutional standards.’ See also Howell v. United States, 4 Cir., 1949, 172 F. 2d 213.
“Relief under 28 U.SiC.A. § 2255 may be granted only where it appears ‘that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack.’ ”
We may add to the above that we do not think that even upon the facts which he now alleges, the appellant had any defense to the charge contained in the indictment. One who traffics in marihuana may not escape liability for violation of the statute merely because he secures the drug through illegitimate channels. See United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 71 S.Ct. 108, 95 L.Ed. 47.
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