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.
Your task is to determine whether or not the first listed respondent is bankrupt. If there is no indication of whether or not the respondent is bankrupt, the respondent is presumed to be not bankrupt.

Opinion:
Albert Soto MEDINA, Appellant, v. J. J. ENOMOTO, Superintendent, California Correctional Inst., Appellee.
No. 74-2682.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 1975.
Albert Soto Medina in pro per.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., State of California, Los Angeles, Cal., for appel-lee.
Before CARTER, HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The order denying Medina’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. The opinion of this court in Mann v. Smith, 488 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 1445, 39 L.Ed.2d 490 (1974), upon which the district court based its decision, was subsequently overruled by Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 95 S.Ct. 886, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975).
Vacated and remanded.

Question: Is the first listed respondent bankrupt?

Choices:
Yes
No

Answer: 1