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 v. Jerome Philip DUTKIEWICZ, Appellant.
No. 17442.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued May 19, 1970.
Decided Aug. 3, 1970.
Joel I. Bergman, Orange, N. J., Charles Armbruster, Jersey City, N. J., for appellant.
George J. Koelzer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (Frederick B. Lacey, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before ALDISERT and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Jerome Philip Dutkiewicz, mounts a two-pronged attack on the validity of his conviction by jury for the crime of transporting a stolen motor vehicle across the state lines, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. Dutkiewicz’s claims arise out of testimony and evidence introduced at trial by Special Agent Eugene Coyle of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While awaiting trial Dutkiewicz was interviewed by Agent Coyle in the Hudson County Jail on September 14, 1966. At that time appellant first signed a waiver of his Constitutional rights and then confessed to transporting a stolen automobile from New Jersey to New York.
Dutkiewicz now claims that he was under the influence of narcotics at the time he confessed and was therefore unable intelligently to waive his Constitutional rights. Appellant further contends that his confession was involuntary because it was secured through psychological coercion.
In accordance with procedures sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court since Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), District Judge Robert Shaw considered appellant’s two contentions in the course of a very thorough hearing out of the presence of the jury. (See Trial Notes of Testimony, pp. 20-100). At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Shaw concluded that the waiver of rights and confession were voluntarily given. The testimony was then presented to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty.
We have examined the entire trial record, including the record of the Jackson-Denno hearing, and must agree with Judge Shaw’s conclusions. The Government has met its heavy burden of demonstrating that Dutkiewicz knowingly and intelligently waived his Constitutional rights. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, at 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). As for the confession, “the question in each case is whether the [appellant’s] will was overborne at the time he confessed” Lynumn v. State of Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 at 534, 83 S.Ct. 917 at 920, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963). The record clearly justifies the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s will was not so overborne.
The judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
. The waiver which Dutkiewicz signed read as follows:
“YOUR RIGHTS
“Place Hudson Co. Jail. J.C.N.J.
“Date 9/14/66
“Time 10:40 A.M.
“Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. You have this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.
“WAIVER
I have read the statement of my rights shown above. I understand what my rights are. I am willing to answer questions and make a statement. I do not want a lawyer. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure of any kind has been used against me.
“Signed /s/ Jerome Dutkiewicz
“Witness /s/ Eugene E. Coyle — SA FBI, Nwk., N.J.
“Witness
“Time 10:45 A.M.”

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