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:
Marvin SPIRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James L. BOTTORFF, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14445.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
May 14, 1964.
Marvin Spires, in pro. per.
Robert G. Bottorff, Jeffersonville, Ind., Richard C. O’Connor, New Albany, Ind., Owen Voigt, Jeffersonville, Ind., for defendant-appellee, Orbison, Rudy & O’Connor, New Albany, Ind., of counsel.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
KILEY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, appeals from an adverse judgment in a civil rights action against an Indiana public official.
This court on May 3, 1963, reversed a judgment denying plaintiff leave to prosecute his suit for damages, and remanded the cause for further proceeding. Spires v. Bottorff, 317 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1963). On remand, the complaint was filed and issues joined. Plaintiff was produced for trial under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Witnesses were heard, and the district court, without a jury, found adversely to plaintiff on his claims that defendant Bottorff’s letter to the warden of the penitentiary, and defendant Bottorff’s alleged prejudicial interference in plaintiff’s coram nobis action in the Clark County Circuit Court, had violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Spires v. Bottorff, 223 F.Supp. 441 (S.D.Ind.1963).
We have read the district court opinion and are satisfied there was no merit in the contentions made here by plaintiff, that the district court disregarded the “uncontradicted testimony” of witness Kage, and that the testimony of witness Baker proved Bottorff’s interference in the coram nobis proceeding. Both contentions involve questions of fact upon which the district court made findings, including considerations of credibility, which have substantial basis in the evidence and are not erroneous. We have no definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. American Glass Co. v. Michigan Mut. Liab. Co., 327 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1964), Footlik v. United States, 323 F.2d 635 (7th Cir., 1963).
For the reasons given, the judgment upon the findings is not error and is 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