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. Mance E. TRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18934.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
June 17, 1969.
J. William Rutherford, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
Martha C. Daughtrey, Nashville, Tenn., Gilbert S. Merritt, Jr., U. S. Atty., Kent Sandidge, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction on two counts of an indictment charging unlawful possession of a check stolen from the United States mail and embezzlement of the proceeds of the check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1702 and 1708. The jury found the defendant not guilty of the first count charging the taking of the envelope and its contents from the mail.
Two issues are presented on the appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury; and (2) whether the District Judge committed reversible error at the time of sentencing by refusing to permit counsel for defendant to inspect a memorandum prepared by counsel for co-defendant and delivered by him to the probation officer. The United States Attorney stated that an “unusual circumstance” had come to his attention in that the probation officer had a report from the co-defendant’s counsel, who was in the courtroom. The United States Attorney commented that “I think it is apropos on the matter of sentencing. * * * ” Thereupon he handed the report or memorandum to the District Judge, who read it and commented that “I’m going to give him exactly the same sentence I was going to give him before I read this because this is not controlling on the sentence matter.” The attorney for appellant asserted that he had a right to see the report, but this request was denied. The District Court proceeded to sentence defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of one year and six months on the second and third counts of the indictment, the sentences to run concurrently.
The refusal of the District Court to apprise defendant of the nature or content of the document was one of the grounds of defendant’s motion for a new trial. This motion was overruled.
Upon a study of the briefs and transcript and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the conviction. The second question, concerning the refusal to inform counsel for defendant of the nature and content of the document which was furnished to and read by the District Judge immediately prior to sentencing, presents a more serious issue.
As a general rule when any communication is made to the District Judge by the prosecutor or a co-defendant at the time of sentencing for the purpose of influencing the sentence, other than through the probation officer in time for investigation, evaluation and report, we think its content should be disclosed to counsel for defendant upon his request.
After oral argument on the present appeal, this Court has obtained from the clerk of the District Court for in camera inspection the original of the document in question. Every member' of the panel has read this document. We think it would have been better practice for the District Judge to have disclosed the contents of this document to counsel for defendant, either in chambers or in open court. However, since the District Judge stated affirmatively that this document had no effect on sentencing and there is nothing about the sentence to indicate the contrary, we conclude that refusal to divulge the contents of the document to counsel for defendant did not constitute reversible error under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
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