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:
LEWIS v. HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 1790.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 27, 1939.
Jesse A. Hall, of Leavenworth, Kan., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty. (Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.
On May 29, 1934, appellant was charged in an indictment containing two counts, involving offenses under Section 101, Title 18 U.S.C.A., which provides:
“Whoever shall receive, conceal, or aid in concealing, or shall have or retain in his possession with intent to convert to his own use or gain, any money, property, record, voucher, or valuable thing whatever, of the moneys, goods, chattels, records, or property of the United States, which has theretofore been embezzled, stolen, or purloined by any other person, knowing the same to have been so embezzled, stolen, or purloined, shall be fined * * *(Italics supplied)
Appellant was found guilty by jury on both counts and duly sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years on the first count and five years on the second count, the sentence imposed on the second count to commence at the expiration of that on the first count.
On February 22, 1935, the appellant was delivered into the custody of the respondent as warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, the appellee herein, where he has since been confined.
It appears that he has served five years less 480 days allowed by Section 710, Title 18 U.S.C.A., and less 117 days industrial good time allowed by Section 744a et seq., Title 18 U.S.C.A., his sentence beginning February 12, 1935. The actual time served prior to the time of suing out the writ of habeas corpus is three years and five months, constituting the serving of a five-year term under the statute.
It is contended that said counts state the same offense, operating as double punishment, and that habeas corpus is the proper remedy to raise the question.
In determining whether the same transaction constitutes two or more distinct offenses, the test is ,as to whether each offense requires proof of any fact which the other does not. Chrysler v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 81 F.2d 975; Belt v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 18; Norton v. Zerbst, Warden, 10 Cir., 83 F.2d 677; Weeks v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 85 F.2d 996; Casebeer v. United States, 10 Cir., 87 F.2d 668; Tanchuck et al. v. United States, 10 Cir., 93 F.2d 534; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 377, 26 S.Ct. 688, 50 L.Ed. 1057, 6 Ann.Cas. 362; Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342, 31 S. Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489; Morgan, Warden of U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153; Albrecht et al. v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct. 250, 71 L.Ed. 505.
Two counts of an indictment charging separate and distinct federal offenses, the court having jurisdiction of the accused and of the offenses charged, and the sentences imposed being authorized by statute, on habeas corpus inquiry may not be made as to whether the proof supported the charges. Norton v. Zerbst, Warden, supra; Watkins v. Zerbst, Warden, 10 Cir., 85 F.2d 999; Murphy v. United States, 7 Cir., 285 F. 801; United States ex rel. Poch v. Hill, 3 Cir., 71 F.2d 906, certiorari denied Poch v. Hill, 293 U.S. 597, 55 S.Ct. 120, 79 L.Ed. 690.
Said Section 101, Title 18, U.S.C.A., includes two distinct offenses.
To convict the accused on the first count of feloniously retaining the possession of the stolen property, it was not necessary to prove that the accused knew the property was stolen at the time he received it, it being sufficient to establish that he retained it knowing of its stolen character.-
To convict under the second count, it was essential to prove that the accused received and concealed the property, knowing the same was stolen at the time he received and concealed same.
The statute makes it a crime (1) to conceal or receive property, knowing the same was stolen, and (2) to retain property, knowing that the same was stolen, different proof being required as to the two counts.
The judgment of the lower court is 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: 0