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:
Curtis COLEMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16728.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 9, 1962.
Decided May 31, 1962.
Mr. Werner J. Kronstein, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Nathan J. Paulson, and Luke C. Moore, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Fahy, Washington and Dan-aher, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was tried jointly with a co-defendant for housebreaking as defined in 22 D.C.Code § 1801 (1961). We affirmed the conviction of the co-defendant. Britton v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 301 F.2d 531. As to this appellant there was testimony which gave rise to the possible application of our decision in Kelley v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 236 F.2d 746, on the question of a tacit admission. The subject was gratifyingly well briefed and presented by counsel for the United States and also by counsel for the appellant. Nevertheless, we feel obliged in any event to decide the case on another ground which was reserved for our review and also presented on the appeal, namely, the inadequacy of the evidence. We have concluded upon consideration of the evidence as a whole that the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence should have been granted.
The co-defendant Britton, whose conviction we have affirmed, was shown to have been in the building where the housebreaking occurred, but the evidence failed to bring home to this appellant either that he aided and abetted Britton by acting as “look-out” or that he participated in any actual breaking or entering of the building, essential elements of the offense charged. By using a police dog to follow a scent appellant was located near the scene, but neither the evidence to that effect, nor other evidence, placed him at any time in the building or established that he had collaborated with Britton in the crime itself.
The jury were not warranted in finding appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reversed and remanded.

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