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:
CAMPOSE et al. v. CENTRAL CAMBALACHE, Inc.
No. 4094.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Aug. 1, 1946.
Antonio Reyes Delgado, of Arecibo, P. R. (Luis Mercader and Pedo Santos Borges, both of Arecibo, P. R., on the brief), for appellants.
Earle T. Fiddler, of San Juan, P. R. (Jose G. Gonzalez, of San Juan, P. R., on the brief), for appellees.
Before EDGESTON (by special assignment), MAHONEY and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The only substantial question presented by these appeals having even a savor of federal law is whether violation of the restrictions upon corporate ownership and control of land originally enacted by § 3 of the Joint Resolution of May 1, 1900, 31 Stat. 715, 716, and later embodied in § 39 of the Organic Act of March 2, 1917, 39 Stat. 951, 964, 48 U.S.C.A. § 752, — the so called “500 Acre Law” — gives rise to an action by a grantor against a corporation for annulment of the latter’s title to land conveyed to and held by it in excess of the limitations imposed. Upon analysis, however, this is not a question of federal law for the reason that the Supreme Court of the United States in Puerto Rico v. Rubert Hermanos, Inc., 309 U.S. 543, 60 S.Ct. 699, 701, 84 L.Ed. 916, determined that Congress having “affixed no direct consequences to disobedience of its land policy for Puerto Rico,” gave the Insular Legislature full power to say how its “policy was to be realized.” Hence the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico in the instant case decided a question of purely local law when it interpreted the insular statute implementing § 39 of the Organic Act, supra, Act No. 33, of July 22, 1935, Laws of Puerto Rico, Special Session 1935, p. 418, as “realizing” the Congressional policy by providing for enforcement thereof only by an information in the nature of Quo Warranto brought against the offending corporation in the insular Supreme Court by the Attorney General acting in the name of the People of Puerto Rico, so that in consequence the title of a corporation to lands held by it “in violation of the act is valid against everyone except against The People of Puerto Rico and if the latter does not institute the proper proceeding against the corporation not only does it hold the valid title but it may also convey it validly to any other person.”
Seeing no clear or manifest error in this interpretation of the insular statute, or in the answers of the Supreme Court of Puer-to Rico to any of the other questions of local law presented, and finding the opinion below fully, adequately and carefully reasoned, we see no occasion to recapitulate that reasoning in a full length opinion of our own.
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico are affirmed on the opinion of that Court with costs in this Court to the appellees.

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