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:
Dock GREEN, Libelant, Appellant, v. SKIBS A/S MANDEVILLE and A. S. Klaveness & Company, A/S Managers and THE S/S KINGSVILLE, Respondents, and Palmetto Stevedoring Co., Inc., Respondent-Impleaded, Appellees.
No. 8319.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 15, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.
Robert Klonsky, Brooklyn, N. Y., and I. H. Jacobson, Charleston, S. C. (Jacobson, Rosenblum & Spar, Charleston, S. C., and Di Costanzo, Klonsky & Sergi, Brooklyn, N. Y., on brief), for appellant.
D. A. Brockinton, Jr., Charleston, S. C. (Waring & Brockinton, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for appellees Skibs A/S Mandeville and A. S. Klaveness & Company, et al.
Harold A. Mouzon, Charleston, S. C. (Moore & Mouzon, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for appellee Palmetto Stevedoring Company, Inc.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge.
The libelant, a longshoreman, injured his knee when he fell or was knocked from the masthouse of the ship to her main deck. He sought damages from the ship, which impleaded the stevedore-employer of the libelant. The District Court’s decree exonerated the ship, and the libelant has appealed.
The injury was sustained as the libel-ant and other longshoremen were undertaking to place one of the ship’s cargo booms in position preparatory to unloading operations. The ship, a Norwegian, was on her maiden voyage. She was provided with gear for placing the booms somewhat unlike the usual system found upon American vessels. However, the testimony shows that it is the system found upon most of the foreign vessels,, particularly the newer, more modem ones. Most of the work of the stevedore was on foreign vessels, and these longshoremen were familiar with the system. Under this system, the topping-lift cable runs, and is permanently secured, to a drum having no power of its own. This drum is divided by a flange into two sections. From the section other than the one carrying the topping-lift cable, may be run a bull cable to the gypsy-head of the cargo winch. Through the use of the bull cable, the turns of the topping-lift drum may be controlled by the cargo winch in the same manner as if the topping-lift cable was run directly to the gypsy-head of that winch, as is generally done on American ships.
There was testimony that the longshoremen placed the hook at the bitter end of the bull line in the flange of the gypsy-head, took up the slack in the bull line, and were engaged in lowering the boom, when the bull line cable parted at the splice near its hook. As the boom fell, the fast running bull line struck the libelant, knocking him off the masthouse platform to the main deck. In a pretrial deposition, however, the libelant had testified repeatedly that the hook at the bitter end of the bull line had not been secured to the flange of the gypsy-head, but that, instead, he had taken six turns of the bull cable around the gypsy-head and was holding the free end of the bull line to maintain tension on the turns. Momentarily, he relaxed the tension; the loosened turns began to run out, and the libelant jumped clear to escape the running cable.
There is no doubt that the steel bull cable parted near the hook. Whether this occurred as a result of the relatively minor tension, which would have been upon it if the hook had been secured to the flange behind several turns of the bull line around the gypsy-head, or whether it parted as a result of the flying hook being caught in something on the ship as the racing and snapping bull line paid out behind the falling boom, was a question of fact which was settled by the findings of the District Court. The District Judge believed the libel-ant’s version of the occurrence as detailed in his pretrial deposition, supported and corroborated to some extent by other evidence, and disbelieved the libelant’s trial version. It was for the District Judge to determine which version of the occurrence to accept. His detailed findings on this aspect of the case are supported by the record. We accept them, as we must.
It, also, was claimed that the equipment was unseaworthy because the topping-lift drum was not provided with a brake which could be operated to stop the drum when revolving at high speed. It was equipped with a raehet and a latch bar, which, when engaged, would prevent the turning of the drum, but there was, also, testimony that this could not be engaged when the drum was turning at very high speed. In the American system, however, there would be no such intervening braking device between the gypsy-head and the topping-lift cable, and there was affirmative testimony that this system was not only modern, but adequate and safe when used as it was intended to be used. After the accident, all of the equipment was tested and found to be operating normally and properly, except, of course, for the break in the bull line near its bitter end.
Finally, the libelant contends that he was not provided a safe place to work. He says there was no room to stand behind the gypsy-head, but that he was required to stand between the gypsy-head and the topping-lift drum, near where that part of the bull line not in use was piled.
There was some opinion evidence to support this contention, but it was contradicted by other opinion evidence.
All of the detailed findings of fact are adequately supported in the record and they fully justify the conclusion of the District Court that the injury was solely the result of the libelant’s failure to maintain the necessary tension on the free end of the bull line which he was attempting to pay out, after having looped it around the gypsy-head.
The appeal presents only factual questions, which the findings of the District Judge, supported by the record, have foreclosed.
Affirmed.
. This equipment and its operation are described in greater detail in the opinion of the District Court, 188 F.Supp. 65.
. To this extent, this contention is inconsistent with his contention that the hook of the bull line was secured to the flange of the gypsy-head, in which event no part of the bull line would have been on the deck.

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: 5