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:
Gus La Vern HILLER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
Misc. No. 403.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 1954.
Gus La Vern Hiller, in pro. per.
No appearance for respondent.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Hiller has been sentenced on one count of an indictment to five years in prison and to four years in prison on the second count, which term is to be served on the expiration of the first. On November 1, 1954, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which imposed sentence, denied a motion to vacate sentence or correct erroneous sentence made by Hiller. The court denied permission to appeal forma pau-peris.
He now seeks from this court permission to appeal forma pauperis. His theory is that 18 U.S.C. § 3568 prevents a federal court from imposing consecutive sentences. The exact same contention was made under the predecessor statute to § 3568 and disposed of contrary to Hiller’s view. United States v. Solomon, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 834; accord, Parmagini v. United States, 9 Cir., 42 F.2d 721. A petition for leave to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis is granted only when there is some merit in the appeal. Fisher v. Cushman, 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 918.
The application to appeal forma pau-peris is denied.

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: 1