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:
King S. GAYLORD, Appellant, v. Donald CLEMMER, Paul F. Pegelow, Appellees.
No. 7386.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 13, 1957.
Decided April 1, 1957.
King S. Gaylord, pro se, on brief.
Henry St. J. FitzGerald, Asst. U. S. Atty., Arlington, Va. (L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted of crime in the District of Columbia and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment which he is presently serving in the Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. He complains of errors on the trial of the case and alleges that he has made motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the sentencing court and that this motion has been denied. It is well settled that errors of the sort of which appellant complains can be corrected only by appeal and that the writ of habeas corpus may not be used in lieu of appeal. Apart from this, it is equally well settled that habeas corpus may not be availed of by a prisoner where motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been denied, unless it appears that such motion “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”; and nothing of the sort appears here. As pointed out in Rice v. Clemmer, 242 F.2d 870, “The fact that decision was rendered against him on the motion means merely that he failed to convince the court that he was entitled to prevail, not that the motion was ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality ox his detention’. The legality of the detention was tested by the motion and was found proper. There is nothing to indicate that the motion did not provide an adequate test.” The petition for habeas corpus was properly denied. Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708; Meyers v. United States, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802; Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711.
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