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. Robert MYERS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eugene R. HOWARD, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles ADDISON, Appellant.
Nos. 12444, 12496, 12498.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 2, 1968.
Decided Jan. 24, 1969.
George F. Griffith (Court-appointed counsel), Fairfax, Va., for appellant in No. 12,444.
Harry P. Friedlander, Arlington, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in No. 12,496.
Bruce G. Campbell (Court-appointed counsel), Fairfax, Va., for appellant in No. 12,498.
Stefan C. Long, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:
These three defendants were jointly indicted and tried upon a charge of receiving and concealing heroin in violation of the narcotics laws. We affirm their convictions.
Armed with arrest warrants for the lessee of an apartment in Alexandria, Virginia, and another individual, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, accompanied by Alexandria detectives, gained lawful access to the apartment. They testified that two of these defendants were seated in front of a coffee table, upon which there was a quantity of heroin, together with needles, syringes and other supplies in connection with its use. These two, the agents testified, jumped up in apparent alarm upon the entry of the officers. The third defendant was also in the living room, and in his shirt pocket there were additional envelopes containing heroin.
Each of the defendants offered a lame explanation for his presence. One said he had entered the apartment for the purpose of calling a taxicab. The second said he had come down from New York to seek a job of a man named “Spoon,” who had no other known name. He had telephoned Spoon, after which, at Spoon’s direction, he had been picked up in the District of Columbia and carried to the apartment in Alexandria, presumptively to await Spoon’s arrival. The third said he went to the apartment to borrow some money and, while waiting there watching television, had been requested by a man named “Eddie,” no other name known, to hold a package for him, the contents of which were unknown to the defendant. Eddie was not otherwise identified.
The defendants offered no corroborating witnesses.
We think the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and we find no abuse of the District Court’s discretion in denying the pretrial motions for severance. The jury was not bound to accept the feeble, unsupported explanation by each defendant of his presence. Since they were arrested together under joint charges and jointly indicted, they were properly tried jointly, notwithstanding the fact that each may have suffered to some extent from the unsavory character of his codefend-ants to the extent that that was revealed at the trial. The latter circumstance is not alone sufficient to require the grant of separate trials; it is but one circumstance which the District Judge may take into account, and is not lent great weight when each of three codefendants, because of the claimed unsavory character of the other two, claims prejudice in being put to a joint trial.
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: 1