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:
HURST v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4359.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 7, 1951.
Harley V. Hurst filed briefs pro se.
Robert E. Shelton, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., and Harry G. Foreman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Norman, Okl., filed a brief for the United States.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
An indictment containing two counts charging violations of 12 U.S.C.A. § 588b (a) was returned against Hurst in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On May 13, 1947, on a plea of guilty theretofore entered, he was sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of ten years on count one and imposition of sentence on count two was suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of five years to commence at the expiration of the sentence imposed on the first count.
On March 29, 1949, Hurst filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. On August 9, 1949, an order was entered denying the motion. On appeal, this court affirmed that order. Hurst v. United States, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 835.
On June 18, 1951, Hurst filed a motion for a new trial based, in part, on alleged newly discovered evidence. On June 18, 1951, the trial court entered an order denying the motion. Hurst has undertaken to appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. provides that “A motion .for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment,” and that “A motion for a new trial based on any other grounds shall be made within 5 days after verdict or finding of guilty * *
If the motion sought a reconsideration of the plea of guilty and judgment of conviction and sentence, it was not filed within the times fixed by Rule 33, supra.
Whether Rule 33 applies to a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, in a proceeding under § 2255, supra, after an order denying the motion to vacate the sentence, we need not determine.
Many of the questions raised by the motion were adjudged adversely to Hurst in Hurst v. United States, supra. The other matters raised by the motion for a new trial clearly do not constitute grounds for •relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
The appeal is dismissed.
. 1948 Revised Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113.

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