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:
John MURRAY, Appellant, v. BRANCH MOTOR EXPRESS COMPANY and Local 557, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Appellees.
No. 82-1202.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 3, 1983.
Decided Dec. 20, 1983.
Harry Goldman, Jr., Richard P. Neuworth, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
James A. Matthews, Jr., Francis M. Mi-lone, James F. Anderson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Frank W. Stegman, Gebhardt & Smith, Baltimore, Md., for Branch Motor Exp. Co.
Bernard W. Rubenstein, Carl S. Taller, Edelman & Rubenstein, P.A., Baltimore, Md., for Local 557, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge:
After John Murray was discharged by Branch Motor Express Company, his union ■ filed a grievance on his behalf. When the parties failed to resolve the dispute, the matter was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator concluded that Murray’s discharge was proper in an award dated April 22, 1976.
On September 13, 1978, Murray filed an action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, charging Branch with breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and the union with breach of its duty of fair representation by mishandling the matter. The district court granted summary judgment for Branch and the union because, in addition to the claim’s lack of merit, the action was barred by Maryland’s 30-day statute of limitations for vacation of arbitration awards which was made applicable by United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981). While Murray’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that the six-month statute of limitations contained in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160, applies to actions brought by an employee for breach of contract and breach of fair representation. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, _ U.S. _, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).
Generally, “an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 281, 89 S.Ct. 518, 525, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969). See United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801). Murray contends, however, that DelCostello should not be applied retroactively, relying on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971).
We are persuaded by Perez v. Dana Corp., 718 F.2d 581 (3d Cir.1983), that Del-Costello should be applied retroactively. In that case, the court found that, applying the Chevron test, the six-month statute of limitations was not an abrupt and fundamental shift in a doctrine on which the plaintiff relied because the prior law was erratic and inconsistent. The court also found that the purpose of the DelCostello rule and the equities of the plaintiff’s case required retroactive application of the decision. We can only add that the equities of the instant case, including the fact that Murray waited almost 29 months to file suit, do not change our conclusion. Murray’s claims against Branch and the union are barred by the six-month statute of limitations, and the judgment of the district court dismissing the action is affirmed.
The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, without discussion of the issue, have applied DelCostello retroactively. Ernst v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., 717 F.2d 1036 (7th Cir.1983); Hand v. International Chemical Workers Union, 712 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.1983). See also Curtis v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 299, 716 F.2d 360 (6th Cir.1983) (dicta).

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