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:
HASTINGS v. UNITED STATES. REYNOLDS v. SAME.
Nos. 11709, 11710.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1940.
R. A. Wilkerson, of Pryor, Okl., for appellants.
Clinton R. Barry, U. S. Atty., of Fort Smith, Ark. (Duke Frederick and John E. Harris, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Fort Smith, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and DEWEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants were indicted, tried and convicted for conspiracy to transport and for transporting intoxicating liquors from the state of Arkansas into the state of Oklahoma in violation of the Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936, 27 U.S.C.A. § 223, and they appeal.
The only contention urged in this court is that the trial court erred in overruling the appellants’ demurrers to the indictment.
The objections to the indictment are based upon the contentions that (1) the Oklahoma statute, House Bill 264, ch. 16, Oklahoma Session Laws 1939, 37 Okl.St. Atm. § 41 et seq., purporting to forbid the importation and transportation of intoxicating liquors into that state does not conform to the Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936 in that the Oklahoma law does not provide for a permit or licensing system with respect to intoxicating liquors imported or transported into the state, and that (2) the Oklahoma statute is violative of the state constitution of Oklahoma.
These contentions were all presented to and considered by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit in Hayes v. United. States, 112 F.2d 417, and in an able opinion were overruled. The state of Oklahoma is situated in the Tenth Circuit. For that reason the opinion of that court construing the Oklahoma law is, in the absence of an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, of peculiar weight. We would not be justified in refusing to follow that opinion, unless satisfied that it is erroneous. Grain Belt Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 109 F.2d 490, 492. We have examined the brief of appellants and have considered their arguments with care, and have reached the conclusion that the decision of the Tenth Circuit is correct. It would be useless, therefore, to extend this opinion for the purpose of discussing appellants’ contentions.
The judgments appealed from are 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: 0