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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howell C. WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-5649
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 27, 1979.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 12, 1979.
Howell C. Willis, pro se.
Arnaldo N. Cavazos, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et at, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
Howell Willis, a tax protestor, appeals his conviction on two counts of willful failure to supply the Internal Revenue Service with information required by statute or regulation for the tax years 1974 and 1975, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Among his numerous contentions, Willis asserts a right to claim on his income tax returns his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and further urges that both the district judge and the prosecutor made prejudicial comments during his trial which require reversal of his conviction. We reject these and other contentions of appellant and affirm.
In 1974 and 1975, Willis filed IRS income tax Form 1040’s that stated his name, address and social security number and asserted line by line his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The 1974 return reported only that defendant had $15.10 in dividend income and 24<p in interest income while the return for 1975 provided no financial information at all. Willis appended to his tax returns various documents purportedly explaining his failure to supply further data regarding his income and his assertion of the fifth amendment privilege. Evidence at trial showed that Willis earned wages of $19,332 in 1974 and $8,611 in 1975.
Our decisions in United States v. Brown, 5 Cir., 1979, 591 F.2d 307; United States v. Wade, 5 Cir., 1978, 585 F.2d 573, and United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1978, 577 F.2d 1304, conclusively dispose of appellant’s contentions respecting his right to assert his privilege against self-incrimination in lieu of supplying the tax information required by statute.
Even if, as Willis argues, the trial judge and the prosecutor made prejudicial comments, which we do not concede, our review of the record convinces us that, given the incontestable evidence of guilt, these remarks did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. “Because the prejudicial effect, if any, of the comments was slight in relation to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Greene, 5 Cir., 1978, 578 F.2d 648, 653-54. See United States v. Haynes, 5 Cir., 1978, 573 F.2d 236, 239.
We have considered appellant’s remaining assertions of error and, finding them merit-less, we affirm.
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