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:
Robert R. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Benjamin C. ADAMS, etc., Defendant, Appellee.
No. 84-1399.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Sept. 13, 1984.
Decided Oct. 9, 1984.
Lawrence M. Edelman, Hampton, N.H., with whom Sanders & McDermott, Hampton, N.H., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.
Daniel J. Mullen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Concord, N.H., with whom Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen., Concord, N.H., was on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before BOWNES, Circuit Judge, and ALDRICH and SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Put simply, the question in this Civil Rights action is whether, following the enactment of Pub.L. 96-364, 94 Stat. 1310 (1980), amending 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(15), the State of New Hampshire, in 1981 and 1982, was prohibited, in determining an individual’s unemployment weekly payments, from deducting — or crediting — the amount reasonably attributable to that week that the individual was receiving from a government pension payable to him on account of his having served 20 years or more in the Armed Services. RSA 282-A:28, as it then read. The district court ruled in favor of the State. We affirm, on the basis of the recent Fourth Circuit opinion in Watkins v. Cantrell, 736 F.2d 933 (4th Cir.1984), in which the court answered fully exactly the same arguments that appellant makes today.
We add that we are offended by appellant’s concept that because of an at least reasonable statutory interpretation by the State he should receive, if it proved mistaken, in addition to back payments and counsel fees, $100,000 damages for emotional distress and a like sum for punitive damages. A state is obliged to make statutory interpretations for the benefit of its citizens, and it should not have to do so in terrorem. Cf. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 259-63, 267-69, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2755-58, 2759-61, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (policies of deterrence and punishment of willful wrongdoing may in appropriate circumstances warrant awards of punitive damages against officials personally, but do not support such awards against municipalities; innocent taxpayers should not bear this burden).
Affirmed; costs to appellee.

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: 5