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:
Aaron M. NADLER, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, Securities Corporation General, Intervenor, Dynamics Corporation of America, Intervenor.
No. 22, Docket 26810.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 11, 1961.
Decided Oct. 31, 1961.
Cameron I. Kay, of Hale, Kay & Grant, New York City, for petitioner.
Mitchell S. Rieger, Associate Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C. (Allan F. Conwill, Gen. Counsel, and Paul J. Kemp, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Bernard D. Cahn, New York City (Arthur W. Murphy and Stephen F. Selig, New York City, on the brief), for intervenor Securities Corporation General.
Bruce Bromley, of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Allen F. Mauls-by, Alan R. Finberg, and John W. Barnum, of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, on the brief), for intervenor Dynamics Corporation of America.
Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On December 30, 1959, the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to § 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80a — 17(b), granted an exemption of § 17(a) thereof, 15 U.S.C. § 80a — 17(a), for a proposed sale by Securities Corporation General to Dynamics Corporation of America of its stock holdings in a third corporation (Anemostat Corporation of America), and also pursuant to § 23(c)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80a — 23(c)(3), permitted SCG to receive in exchange certain shares of its own preferred stock held by DCA, as well as cash. The present petition for review, brought by Nadler as a common stockholder of SCG, is from a Commission order of December 23, 1960, holding that no basis exists to revoke the prior order. Nadler’s attack is based upon the claim that the SCG directors who sought the exemption were improperly chosen under § 16 (a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80a — 16(a) — being elected by the board of directors, rather than by the shareholders at a shareholders’ meeting. The Commission, after hearing, found that there was a failure to comply with this provision, but that the failure was inadvertent and the persons involved were the major beneficial owners of the company and could have elected the same persons as directors and did so at the next regular stockholders’ meeting in accordance with § 16(a). Then it made an extensive review of the evidence and found that there was no evidence of fraud or overreaching in the transaction and that the terms and considerations of the transaction were fair and reasonable. So it declined to revoke its exemption.
These findings, which are supported by the evidence, are crucial against the petitioner’s claim. We see no basis for the conclusion that all acts by a board not chosen as required by § 16(a) must be considered void. The statute indicates that such a board has power to take action to secure a properly chosen board within a sixty-day period, which may be extended by the Commission. It would be an unsound policy, fraught with harm to the shareholders, to have everything done by such a board to carry on the corporation’s normal business, especially within the statutory period, declared invalid. The Commission acted properly in carefully scrutinizing transactions during the interim period and in not voiding transactions found to be reasonable and proper in themselves. Nadler’s further claims of inadequate hearing and lack of notice must fall because of the undoubted fact that eventually he was given a very full hearing.
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: 5