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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary Grace WESTLAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-1402
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 1973.
Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Lawrence B. Craig, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 (a). On appeal, she raises two points, both of which we consider to be without merit.
First, she argues that the implementation of the jury selection plan for the Southern District of Florida unconstitutionally excludes Cuban immigrants and young adults from jury service. This very contention has been raised and rejected on many occasions in the past. See, e. g., United States v. Gooding, 5th Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 425; United States v. Blair, 5th Cir. 1972, 470 F.2d 331; United States v. Pentado, 5th Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 355. Those decisions are dis-positive of appellant’s first contention.
Secondly, appellant argues that 21 U.S.C. § 811, which empowers the Attorney General to modify the “schedules” of controlled substances and narcotics set out in 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), represents an impermissible delegation of legislative power. We decline to reach this point at the present time. Congress initially classified cocaine as a Schedule II Controlled Substance, and the Attorney General has neither rescheduled nor deleted cocaine from the list of controlled substances since the effective date of the statute. Appellant therefore has not been affected by whatever delegation of authority may be embodied in the statute.
The judgment below is accordingly 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