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:
MILLER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11958.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 25, 1942.
For original judgment of affirmance of conviction, see 123 F.2d 715.
See, also, 124 F.2d 849.
No attorney appeared for the appellant.
Clinton R. Barry, U. S. Atty. and Thomas C. Pitts, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Fort Smith, Ark., for the United States.
Before SANBORN and JOHNSEN, , Circuit Judges, and NORDBYE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This Court on November 25, 1941, affirmed the conviction of the appellant. 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 715. Thereafter the appellant, who is without funds and has entered upon the execution of his sentence, filed applications praying (1) for the appointment of counsel to conduct further proceedings on his behalf, and (2) for an order directing that, at the Government’s expense, a full and complete transcript of all of the testimony taken at the trial be sent to this Court to enable it to review and reconsider this case. The appellant had presented only one question for decision, and his record on appeal was insufficient to enable this Court to determine other questions if they had been presented. Since in Holmes v. United States, 62 S.Ct. 357, 86 L.Ed. _, the Government had consented to the vacation of a judgment of affirmance entered by this Court (see 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 528) in a case where the record on appeal contained no bill of exceptions and was insufficient to enable this Court to determine the questions presented for decision, we considered it advisable, in the instant case, to ascertain whether the Government desired to consent that the case might be reopened to enable the appellant, Miller, to have a complete review. We therefore made an order requesting that the Government make response to the applications of the appellant, and affording the appellant an opportunity to reply to the response of the Government. See, 8 Cir., 124 F.2d 849. The Government has made its response, in which it seeks to distinguish the situation in the Holmes case from the situation in this case, and states that it could not lawfully pay or be compelled to pay for a bill of exceptions in this case, and that the appellant had the opportunity to procure a complete record on appeal had he desired to do so. The Government indicates that it does not propose to consent to the vacation of the judgment of this Court or to a reopening of this case.
Whether there is a distinction between the Holmes case and the present case, we do not regard as important. What we were concerned about was whether the Government proposed to consent to a vacation of the judgment of this Court in this case and to a reconsideration and rehearing. This Court has decided the only question which was presented and which, upon the record, it had jurisdiction to decide, and we are convinced that it decided that question correctly. The only judgment which could have been entered was entered, and the case is ended so far as this Court is concerned. If further proceedings are to be conducted by the appellant, they must necessarily be conducted in the Supreme Court of the United States. We are therefore, of the opinion that the appellant, if he intends to proceed further, should apply to that Court for such relief and assistance as he may consider himself entitled to. He is granted leave to withdraw any of the original documents presented by him to this Court in connection with his applications for the appointment of counsel and for a complete transcript of the evidence. If any further proceedings taken by the appellant in the Supreme Court result in any liability for Clerk's fees or costs in this Court, he, as a poor person, is relieved of the obligation to pay such fees or costs.
The applications of the appellant are 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