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:
HERSHKOWITZ v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6454.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 29, 1933.
H. F. Gliek, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Mare J. Wolpaw, of Cleveland, Ohio (Wilfred J. Mahon, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Before MOORMAN, HICKENLOOPER, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal involves validity of searches made by prohibition officers without warrant, the first of the appellant’s automobile and the second of his dwelling. Agents of the Prohibition Department had on a date prior to the search observed appellant unloading what appeared to be bags of corn sugar from his automobile. They had followed the car from a known com sugar supply house. They noted a strong odor of whisky mash about the premises where the sugar was unloaded. Three days later other agents approached the premises. They also noted the odor of whisky mash, and observed appellant carrying a can from the house to the ear parked on the driveway in the rear. Crawling over a fence, they approached the appellant and asked him what he had, stating they wanted some whisky. Appellant replied, “I don’t know you fellows.” One of the agents pulled the can out of the ear, found it to contain whisky, and placed the appellant under arrest.
Following the arrest, the agents searched the dwelling house, gaining access by keys found on appellant’s person. On the second floor they discovered a still, whisky, and empty cans. In the attic were found mash, corn sugar, barrels, and yeast. Appellant was in- . dieted on three counts, charging (1) possession, (2) manufacture, (3) maintaining ;a nuisance. A motion to suppress the evidence was overruled, and conviction on all three counts followed. A general sentence of fine and imprisonment was imposed.
The search of the automobile was not unreasonable. The officers had probable cause to believe the law was being violated. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790; Husty v. United States, 282 U. S. 694, 51 S. Ct. 240, 75 L. Ed. 629, 74 A. L. R. 1407. The search of the house was illegal. It was conceded at the trial that the premises were occupied by the appellant as his private dwelling. We cannot, on the record, say otherwise. The facts within the knowledge of the officers were insufficient to support the issue of a search warrant, Grau v. United States, 287 U. S. 124, 53 S. Ct. 38, 77 L. Ed. 212, and it must follow that search without warrant under the circumstances is at least equally within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment. Nor can the search be justified as an incident of the arrest. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 145, 51 A. L. R. 409. The officers already had evidence of possession. Further search could only be exploratory for the purpose of bringing to light other crimes. We think the court was in error in failing to grant the motion to suppress in so far as it related to evidence found upon search of the house.
The sentence imposed up«n appellant was general, and since it provides for both fine and imprisonment, and cannot therefore be sustained by conviction on the possession count alone, even though possession is therein charged as a second offense, we direct the following disposition of the case:
The judgment below on count 1 is affirmed, but the sentence is set aside, and as to it the cause is remanded for resentenee. The judgments on counts 2 and 3 are reversed, and as to them the cause is remanded for new trial, it being assumed that, if there is no evidence of guilt other than that disclosed by the invalid search, the two counts will on motion he dismissed.

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: 0