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. Angel MORA-CHAVEZ, Appellant.
No. 73-3444.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 26, 1974.
Warren R. Williamson (argued), Charles M. Sevilla, Federal Defenders Inc., San Diego, Cal., for appellant.
James Meyers, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Before DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
The Honorable James M. Burns, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:
The district court refused to suppress 634 pounds of marijuana found in an automobile stopped by border-patrol officers 660 feet from the Mexican border. We affirm the resulting conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a) (1).
The officers were alerted by electronic sensors which detect human foot traffic across the border. The automobile was one of two which the officers stopped at about six o’clock on a Sunday morning, when they appeared in the vicinity of freshly detected border traffic. Each of the automobiles was occupied by a solitary male. The two appeared to be traveling in tandem.
The practice of illegal aliens to walk across the border and of smugglers to “back-pack” contraband over the border in remote desert areas between border checkpoints is well known. See United States v. Patterson, 492 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1974). The prompt inspection of the first automobile to appear on the highway after the officers received the sensor alarm was not only well-advised, but was based upon a founded suspicion. The officers knew that some person or persons had recently crossed the border illegally and that the two automobiles which were stopped were the only ones known to have been in the sensor-surveillance area near the time of the sensor alert.
The use of the electronic sensor devices is relatively new along the international border. The border patrol does not have enough officers to maintain constant line watch at all times and along all the remote crossing areas. The electronic devices were developed for the military detection of night patrols and infiltrators. The devices are engineered to ignore small animals, but to record an alarm when metal or an animal weighing more than 40 pounds passes nearby. These alarms are recorded in a central station and forwarded by radio to vehicular patrols supplementing the line watch. The trial court was able to find from the government’s explanation of the sensor technique adequate foundation for a decision to stop the automobiles in this case. After the automobiles were stopped, the first driver revealed that he was an illegal alien. He was arrested. The ensuing search incidental to the arrest produced the evidence. There was no error.
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: 1