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:
POWELL v. MEYER, Warden.
No. 8738.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Argued Feb. 14, 1945.
Decided Feb. 16, 1945.
Thomas Potter, of Princeton, N. J., for appellant.
C. William Caruso, of Newark, N. J. (Walter D. Van Riper, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, and Jerome B. Litvak, Deputy Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and BARD, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the face of the petition and admissions made in presenting it to the judge below that petitioner was convicted in a court of the State of Georgia of the crime of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment; that he escaped from prison and came to the State of New Jersey; that he was arrested in the latter state on a warrant charging him with being a fugitive from justice; that the Governor of New Jersey in extradition proceedings ordered him returned to the State of Georgia; and that at the time of the filing of his petition for writ of habeas corpus he was held in custody under the warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of New Jersey.
Petitioner alleged in his petition that in the trial in Georgia which resulted in his conviction he was denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, although he admits that he was represented by competent counsel and that his conviction was appealed to and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Powell v. State, 193 Ga. 398, 18 S.E.2d 678. He makes no showing of having exhausted his remedies under state law or that any rights which he may have cannot be adequately safeguarded by appeal to the state tribunals. Under such circumstances it is perfectly clear that he is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus from a federal court. Aside from the fact that the confinement of which he complains arises from the warrant issued by the Governor on the admitted fact that he is a fugitive from justice, it is well settled that the writ of habeas corpus from a federal court may not be used as a substitute for a writ of error to review the proceedings of state court, nor, even where there is allegation that the denial of constitutional rights is so gross as to oust the court of jurisdiction and invalidate the proceedings, may it be availed of until all remedies under the law of the state have been exhausted. See Sanderlin v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 729, and cases there cited.
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