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:
THOMAS v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11857.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Jan. 21, 1954.
Mr. James S. Brocard, Washington, D. C. , for appellant.
Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time of submission, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant'was indicted on February 9, 1953, in a one-count indictment charging him with robbery, “being then and there armed with a pistol.” After he had entered a plea of guilty, the appellant was sentenced to serve a term of six years and eight months to twenty years. The appellant then moved to “vacate or correct illegal sentence.” That motion was denied by the District Court on June 19, 1953, but that court, the same day, granted leave to the appellant to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs. The sole issue on the appeal is whether the sentence imposed was greater than the maximum permissible by law. We think that it was.
D.C.Code Title 22, § 2901 (1951), under which the appellant was indicted, reads: ' •
“Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery, and any person convicted thereof shall suffer imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than fifteen years.” [Emphasis supplied.]
D.C.Code Title 22, § 3202 (1951), provides :
“If any person shall commit a crime of violence in the District of ■ Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm, he may, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime, be punished by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. . . . ” [Emphasis supplied.]
D.C.Code Title 22, § 3201 (1951), defines “crime of violence” as follows:
“ ‘Crime of violence,’ as used in this chapter, means any of the following crimes, or an attempt to commit any of the same, namely: Murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem,, maliciously disfiguring another, abduction, kidnaping, burglary, housebreaking, larceny, any assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault with intent to commit ' any offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.”
It will be observed from the foregoing-that under Section 3201 the crime of robbery is not included within the definition of “crime of violence” although assault, with intent to commit .robbery is. There-.fore the additional penalty of five years’' imprisonment imposable under Section 3202 upon one who commits a crime of violence armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm cannot lawfully be imposed upon persons convicted of robbery “being then and there armed with a pistol.” According ly, as the sentence imposed upon appellant exceeds the fifteen-year maximum permissible term under Section 2901, we are obliged to set aside the order denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence and to remand the ease to the District Court for resentencing under the provisions of D.C.Code Title 22, § 2901 (1951).
It is so ordered.

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