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:
GRANT et al. v. RICHARDSON, Superintendent of State Penitentiary of South Carolina, et al.
No. 4965.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 30,1942.
Harold R. Boulware, of Columbus, S. C., for appellants.
Robert McC. Figg, Jr., of Charleston, S. C. (John M. Daniel, Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus. No certificate of probable cause as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 466 was issued by the judge below; but the appeal was heard along with an application for such certificate addressed to the judges of this court. We are of opinion that both the appeal and the application are without merit.
Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death, for the crime of assault with intent to commit rape, by the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, South Carolina. After their conviction, questions with relation to the constitution of the grand jury which found the indictment and the petit jury which found the appellants guilty of the crime charged, as well as questions relating to the opportunity given the prisoners to secure counsel and the opportunity given counsel to prepare the case for trial, were fully considered on a motion for new trial. The motion for new trial was denied; and these questions were considered by the Supreme Court of South Carolina, together with questions raised on the trial, on an appeal in which the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. State v. Grant, 199 S. C. 412, 19 S.E.2d 638. Application for certiorari was made to the Supreme Court of the United States by a petition in which these questions were presented, and the application was denied by that court. Grant et al., Petitioners, v. State of South Carolina, 62 S.Ct. 942, 86 L.Ed.-. The petition for habeas corpus attempts to raise the same questions again and thus review the decision of the state court as to questions which the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review on application for certiorari. It is well settled that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be thus used as a writ of error. Woolsey v. Best, 299 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 2, 81 L.Ed. 3.
It is alleged in the petition that there is reason to believe that appellant Grant is insane and has been in that condition for some time. No such defense was asserted upon the trial or upon the motion for new trial, and the allegation furnishes no ground for issuing the writ of habeas corpus. If he is now insane, this is a matter which should be called to the attention of the Governor of the State in an application for executive clemency or made the subject of an application to the courts of South Carolina for stay of sentence pursuant to rule 28 of the Supreme Court of that state. Certainly the State of South Carolina will not permit a death sentence to be executed upon an insane person; but this is a matter to be dealt with by the Governor or the state courts. It does not furnish ground for release by a federal court under a writ of habeas corpus.
For the reasons stated, the order denying the writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed.
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