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:
James GORDON and Edward L. Brown, Petitioners, Appellants, v. J. T. WILLINGHAM, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13557.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued June 9, 1961.
Decided Aug. 30, 1961.
Alfred Avins, Chicago, 111., for appellants.
Janies C. Waller, Jr., Washington, D. C. (Daniel H. Jenkins, U. S. Atty., Phillip H. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., Thomas A. Ryan, Lieutenant Colonel, JAGC, Office of The Judge Advocate Gen., Dept, of the Army, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and HAS-TIE and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants are two of seven American soldiers who were tried together and convicted by a court-martial in West Germany for multiple rape upon a fifteen year old German girl. Appellant Gordon was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment and dishonorable discharge. Appellant Brown was sentenced to imprisonment for forty years and dishonorable discharge. In due course a Board of Review, acting pursuant to Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866, considered various contentions, including these now in issue, and reduced the terms of imprisonment to thirty years in the case of Gordon and fifteen years in the case of Brown. Thereafter, the United States Court of Military Appeals reviewed the cases and affirmed the decision of the Board of Review. United States v. Carter et al., 1958, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 108. To serve their sentences the present appellants were confined within the Middle District of Pennsylvania where they filed this petition for habeas corpus. Relief was denied by the district court and the prisoners have appealed to us.
We have examined the record and have considered all of appellants’ contentions. We find no error in the decision of the district court.
Only one contention, which appellants’ capable counsel candidly designates as his strongest point, requires particular comment. It is argued that the members of the court-martial were impelled or inclined to impose very severe sentences upon appellants because of urgings by the convening authority and a still higher commander shortly before this trial that Draconian punishment be meted out to soldiers convicted of crimes of violence against German civilians. At the same time, there is no indication that anything said by commanders should have been understood or was in fact understood by members of this court-martial as urging that anyone be convicted without proper and convincing proof of guilt. Thus, the issue of command influence is limited to the question whether the appellants have been deprived of essential fairness and independence of judgment in sentencing.
Under military law the maximum sentence which could properly have been imposed pursuant to these convictions of rape was life imprisonment. As we already have stated, the court-martial sentenced appellants Gordon and Brown to imprisonment for life and for forty years, respectively. However, the Board of Review resentenced appellants to prison terms of thirty years and fifteen years, respectively. On the present record we think' this action by the Board of Review is decisive against appellants’ constitutional contention, regardless of the possibility that the court-martial may have been subjected to command influence in its fixing of penalties.
The Supreme Court recently pointed out in Jackson v. Taylor, 1957, 353 U.S. 569, 77 S.Ct. 1027, 1 L.Ed.2d 1045, affirming a decision of this court, 234 F.2d 611, that a Board of Review, acting under Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866, is vested with plenary power to substitute for the original sentence of a court-martial whatever lesser sentence the Board may consider appropriate on the entire record and in all of the circumstances of the case. Indeed, the Supreme Court indicated that in the administration of military justice this procedure is a proper substitute for a remand for resentencing by a court-martial. Accord, Fowler v. Wilkinson, 1957, 353 U.S. 583, 77 S.Ct. 1035, 1 L.Ed.2d 1054. It is, therefore, the presently effective sentence imposed by the Board of Review, not the superseded more severe sentence of the court-martial, which we must consider in determining whether there has been essential fairness and freedom from undue influence in sentencing. We have found nothing which indicates that the Board of Review was influenced in any way by what the theatre commanders had said or that the Board did not make independent and unbiased determination of what constituted fair sentences in these cases. We are satisfied that due process of law in sentencing requires no more than competence and impartiality on the part of the authority which has imposed the sentence under which the prisoners are now confined. For due process purposes it is not important that the effective sentence was imposed by an authority other than the original trial tribunal.
The judgment will be affirmed.
. Co-defendants who have been committed to prisons elsewhere have also made unsuccessful collateral attacks upon their convictions and sentences. Kasey v. Goodwyn, 4 Cir., 1961, 291 F.2d 174; Chandler v. Markley, D.C.S.D.Ind., 191 F.Supp. 706.

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: 5