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, Appellee, v. John EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 225, Docket 27541.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 24, 1963.
Decided Jan. 31, 1963.
Theodore Krieger, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Michael J. Gillen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York (Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for ap-pellee.
Before FRIENDLY, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant John Evans was tried before a jury for the crime of conspiracy to violate the federal narcotics law, 21 U.S. C. § 174. The proof adduced by the Government showed a meeting between the defendant and one Brown, a narcotics agent, which was arranged by James Taylor, an alleged co-conspirator. A sale of narcotics to Brown was consummated with the assistance of yet a third co-conspirator, one Rodriguez. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant’s sole attack on the proceedings below is directed at the instructions given by the trial judge concerning the elements of proof requisite to a conviction under the narcotics law. The judge charged:
“ * * * the indictment says that they had arranged to sell an imported drug contrary to law * *. The possession of the drug sold in violation of the law carries with it * * * the presumption that it was imported in the United States in violation of the law * * *. [I] f anyone is charged with conspiring to sell narcotics that was unlawfully imported, then in view of the statutory possession the law carries the presumption that it was imported contrary to law, and any person who may be in the conspiracy * * * is just as guilty as the one who had it in his hands.”
We find that the trial judge committed error in instructing the jury that possession of narcotics by one of the co-conspirators creates a “presumption” that the goods were unlawfully imported, making other co-conspirators “just as guilty” as the possessor. This instruction, without more, for all practical purposes, amounted to a directed verdict in favor of the Government should the jury merely find that one of the co-conspirators had possession of the narcotics. Such was certainly a misapplication of the language in 21 U.S.C. § 174 which provides that “possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.” This Court recently held, construing the statutory provision, that “once the Government has proved possession of what in fact was a narcotic drug, it need do no more to get to the jury, which may convict unless the defendant explains the possession to its satisfaction.” United States v. Mont, 306 F.2d 412, 416 (2d Cir., 1962). In short, a finding of possession authorizes conviction, but does not compel it. It permits the jury to infer that all of the elements requisite to conviction were proved by the Government to their satisfaction. Since the jury, despite proof of possession, may find that one of those elements was lacking, it is incumbent upon the trial judge not only to explain properly the function of the statutory '“authorization” but also to instruct on each and every element — unlawful importation, knowledge, and facilitation or sale — of the offense charged. Cf. United States v. Agueci, 310 F.2d 817 (2d Cir., 1962); United States v. Massiah, 307 F.2d 62 (2d Cir., 1962).
We are grateful to Theodore Krieger, Esq., who, as assigned counsel, has vigorously represented appellant in the preparation and presentation of this appeal.
Reversed and remanded.

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