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:
Paul A. SCHUMPERT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13081.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
June 11, 1957.
William E. J. Listerman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
James R. Tuck, Nashville, Tenn. (Fred Elledge, Jr., and Andrew M. Gant, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was sentenced by the district court to prison terms totalling twenty consecutive years upon his plea of guilty to seven counts of a fifteen count indictment charging that he used the mails to defraud. This appeal is from the district court’s denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence.
It is the appellant’s contention, ably presented by court appointed counsel, that although each of the counts covered a separate use of the mails, his fraudulent scheme was a single one, and that he was therefore guilty of but one offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. Each of the letters in question was different. They were not mailed simultaneously, but at different dates and to different addressees. Compare Bell v. United States, 1955, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905; Rayborn v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 368.
The appellant was sentenced under former section 338 of Title 18 U.S.C., the mailings having been made before that section was amended and incorporated in 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. It is clear that under the language of the former section each separate mailing for the proscribed purpose constituted a separate offense. Badders v. United States, 1916, 240 U.S. 391, 394, 36 S.Ct. 367, 60 L.Ed. 706; Stumbo v. United States, 6 Cir., 1937, 90 F.2d 828, 831; Mitchell v. United States, 10 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 480. Whether the language of the present statute is to be similarly construed is a question we do not reach. But see Palmer v. United States, 10 Cir., 1955, 229 F.2d 861, certiorari denied, 1956, 350 U.S. 996, 76 S.Ct. 546, 100 L.Ed. 861.
The order of the district court is 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