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:
Robert Lee PAYNE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 26283.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 7, 1969.
Jack J. Taffer, Miami, Fla. (court appointed), for appellant.
William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Neal R. Sonnett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from conviction of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. We have considered all contentions of appellant, the briefs and the full record.
The court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant was identified by a police officer as the person in possession of a vehicle in Florida which was sufficiently identified as having been recently stolen in Illinois. The possession was unexplained. Beufve v. United States, 374 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1967); Barfield v. United States, 229 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1956).
The statement made by appellant immediately after he was taken into custody, concerning his possession of a revolver, was not inadmissible under Miranda. Under the undisputed testimony the statement was volunteered by him. No interrogation had occurred.
In summation to the jury the prosecutor stated that a person who was shown to be near the scene of appellant’s arrest had been released by the police because he was only a hitchhiker. There was no evidence to that effect. Counsel for petitioner promptly objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion and gave corrective instructions. The only significance of the matter was that there were items of property nearby which tended to connect appellant with the stolen vehicle, and the jury could have inferred that the person said to be a hitchhiker put them there rather than appellant. Since appellant was found in possession of a revolver bearing a serial number which matched the serial number shown on a revolver box found in the stolen and previously abandoned vehicle, we are of the view that the one single, brief and erroneous reference to the status of the otherwise identified person was not reversible error.
Affirmed.
. Under Rule 18 the Court has placed this case on the Summary Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Floyd v. Resor, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 714, n. 2.

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