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, Appellee, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Appellant.
No. 741, Docket 35582.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 29,1971.
Decided April 30, 1971.
Sidney G. Sparrow, Kew Gardens, N. Y. (Sparrow & Sparrow, Kew Gardens, N. Y., Gretchen White Oberman, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert D. MacLachlan, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (Edward R. Neaher, U. S. Atty., for the Eastern District of New York, David G. Trager, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
Of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Williams appeals from a judgment of conviction for larceny from a federally insured bank, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, after a trial before a jury and Chief Judge Jacob Mishler. Williams argues on appeal that (1) the district court erred in refusing to suppress his oral statement to an FBI agent; and (2) under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, the district court had no jurisdiction to try him as an adult. As to (1), Judge Dooling held a pre-trial hearing at which three witnesses, including defendant, testified. The judge concluded in substance that the statement was not coerced and that defendant had received Miranda warnings. We agree with the findings of the trial court in this respect and hold that no error was committed by allowing the statement in evidence.
The second claim is raised for the first time on appeal, and the record before us is concededly incomplete as to whether appellant refused to consent to juvenile procedure or whether the Attorney General directed criminal prosecution. Under these circumstances, we remand this case to the district court to make findings, and receive further evidence, if necessary, on the issues raised by this argument, as to which we express no view on the merits. If, as the Government claims, appellant was properly proceeded against in a criminal prosecution, the judgment of conviction should not be disturbed, and appellant will have the right to appeal again on issue (2) above, if he so desires. If the prosecution was not properly instituted, the district court shall take whatever corrective steps it regards as appropriate.
Affirmed in part; remanded in part in accordance with the above.

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