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:
David E. LEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 895 Docket 34862.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued May 14, 1971.
Decided June 1, 1971.
Sol Lefkowitz, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Stanley H. Wallenstein, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D., of New York, and Joseph P. Marro, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, and ZAVATT, District Judge.
Of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff David E. Lever brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq., to recover damages for injuries resulting from alleged acts of negligence and medical malpractice in connection with a series of operations he underwent at the Manhattan Veterans Administration Hospital in 1962. In a characteristically thorough opinion the late Judge Herlands denied Lever’s claims and ordered his complaint to be dismissed. 300 F.Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y.1969). On July 15, 1969, judgment was entered accordingly. Nine days later Lever moved the court, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 52(b), to amend its findings or for additional findings and to amend the judgment accordingly and, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 59, for a new trial on the grounds that the judgment was contrary to law, to the evidence, and to the weight of the evidence. On August 28, 1969, while these motions were pending, Judge Herlands died. Lever’s counsel subsequently submitted an affidavit suggesting that this provided an additional reason for a new trial. On February 27, 1970, Judge Bryan denied the motions in all respects. Lever appealed, attacking Judge Her-lands’ decision on the merits and contending that because the judge had given substantial weight to his evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, see, e.g., 300 F.Supp. at 890, 893, 897, 899, 900, 905, Judge Bryan could not properly rule on the motions under F.R.Civ.P. 63.
Rule 63 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If by reason of death, sickness, or other disability, a judge before whom an action has been tried is unable to perform the duties to be performed by the court under these rules after a verdict is returned or findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed, then any other judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court in which the action was tried may perform those duties; but if such other judge is satisfied that he cannot perform those duties because he did not preside at the trial or for any other reason, he may in his discretion grant a new trial.
As mere statement of the rule makes clear, once an action has been tried and findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto have been filed, the sound general principle is that in the interests of judicial economy post-trial motions may be handled by another judge if the trial judge is unable to pass on these, and a new trial need not be granted. Only if the second judge is satisfied that he cannot perform the duties imposed on him by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the particular case before him may he, in his discretion, grant a new trial. As Judge Holtzoff stated in ruling on motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial in a railroad crossing collision case, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 63:
It is well established that if the trial judge dies after the jury returns a verdict but before a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion for a new trial is heard or decided, another judge may pass upon such applications. * * * An exception arises only if the successor finds that he cannot satisfactorily perform such a function by reason of the fact that he did not preside at the trial, or for some other reason. No such unusual situation emerges in the case at bar. This case is not within the exception.
Miller v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 161 F.Supp. 633, 636 (D.C.D.C.1958). See also Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Neal, 229 F.2d 136, 138 (9 Cir. 1955); Lashbrook v. Kennedy Motor Lines, Inc., 119 F.Supp. 716, 717 (W.D.Pa.1954).
The case before us is an especially clear one for the salutary application of the general rule, since the trial judge made elaborate findings of fact and specifically noted his evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, thus enabling another judge to examine the record with a discriminating eye. Judge Bryan was “fully satisfied” that he could perform all the duties of the court which were required to decide plaintiff’s motions and perceived “no reason whatever” why he could not decide them. Nor do we. The cases cited by plaintiff in which a new trial has been granted after the death of the trial judge, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Siraco, 174 F.2d 360 (2 Cir. 1949) and Brennan v. Grisso, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 198 F.2d 532 (1952), are not to the contrary. Siraco was a case in which the deceased trial judge had rendered no decision at all, thus removing it from the application of Rule 63, and the parties had stipulated that the actions be referred to another judge for determination on the trial record. And although the Brennan court spoke of the “generous attitude” the Rule shows towards a new trial when the trial judge has died before the case has been disposed of — a view not entirely consistent with the one we take here, or with that followed in other eases we have cited, or with the language of the Rule as we read it — there the trial judge had expressed only his oral opinion with respect to the proper disposition of the ease so that, in contrast to the instant case, the second judge did not have the benefit of comprehensive findings of fact or explicit judgments with respect to the credibility of witnesses.
With respect to the merits, while we are not without sympathy for plaintiff’s misfortune, we affirm on the well-considered opinion of Judge Herlands. 300 F.Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y.1969).
Judgment 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