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:
Henry F. REDDINGTON, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 5049.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Jan. 11, 1956.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 26, 1956.
See 76 S.Ct. 556.
Henry F. Reddington, pro se, on brief for appellant.
Arthur I. Weinberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On March 13, 1953, the present appellant, with others, was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. At the same time two additional indictments were returned against appellant, and others, charging substantive offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on March 18,1953.
After a trial commencing June 21, 1955, the jury returned verdicts of guilty against appellant, and sentences were imposed pursuant to the verdicts on August 17, 1955. The present appeal is from these judgments of conviction.
At first, the district court granted appellant leave to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis. Later, upon leave granted by this court, the district court held a hearing for the purpose of reconsidering its allowance of appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and on October 3,1955, the district court revoked its prior order in this respect. In an accompanying memorandum, the district court concluded as follows:
“I find that the appeal is frivolous. I certify that in my opinion the defendant is not proceeding in good faith even if that involves the question of his state of mind. I believe that he enjoys legal proceedings, that this appeal affords him something to relieve the monotony of his present state court incarceration, and that he is merely playing for the outside chance. The allowance of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is revoked and said motion is denied.”
On the record before us, the only point that might be considered as properly presented is that the district court was in error in denying a motion for dismissal of the indictments on the ground that appellant had been denied his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. We are unable to conclude that there was undue delay in bringing appellant to trial, or that appellant suffered any substantial prejudice on account of the interval of time which elapsed between the date of the indictments and the commencement of the trial. The district court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the indictments, as is made clear by the memoranda on the point filed by Judge Wyzanski and by Judge Aldrich. See, generally, Shepherd v. United States, 8 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 974; Pietch v. United States, 10 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 817, certiorari denied 1940, 310 U. S. 648, 60 S.Ct. 1100, 84 L.Ed. 1414; Worthington v. United States, 7 Cir., 1924, 1 F.2d 154, certiorari denied 1924, 266 U.S. 626, 45 S.Ct. 125, 69 L.Ed. 475.
The judgments of the District Court are 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