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:
Thomas E. KEANE and Paul T. Wigoda, individually and on behalf of all other residents of the City of Chicago, Ellinois, Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al., Appellees.
No. 71-1343.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 4, 1973.
Jerome H. Torshen (argued), Lawrence H. Eiger, Chicago, 111., for appellants.
G. William Shea (argued), of Mc-Cutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., Robert L. Stern (argued), of Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, 111., Lloyd N, Cutler (argued), of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., Hammond E. Chaffetz (argued), of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, 111., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, 111., Ronald Bloomfield, Atty. Gen., New York City, Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, N. M., George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., Robert S. Killiam, Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., Max P. Zall, City Atty., Denver, Colo., J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel for the City of New York, R. F. Outcault, Jr., Marcus Mattson, Robert Henigson, of Lawler, Felix & Hall, Richard H. Borow, of Irell & Manella, Carla A. Hills, of Munger, Tolies, Hills & Riekershauser, Julian O. von Kalinowski, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Harvey M. Grossman, of Pacht, Ross, Warne, Bernhard, Sears & Nutter, Alan N. Halkett, of Latham & Watkins, Richard C. Warmer, of O’Melveny & Myers, Philip K. Verleger, Jack D. Fudge, of McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., Kenneth P. Kimmel, Santa Monica, Cal., Benjamin F. Schwartz, of Schwartz & Alschuler, Los Angeles, Cal., William J. A. Sturtz, Long Beach, Cal., Perry Goldberg, Roger W. Barrett of Mayer, Brown & Platt, Joseph DuCoeur, of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, 111., David I. Shapiro, of Dickstein, Shapiro & Galligan, John H. Schafer, III, of Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., David Berger, of Cohen, Shapiro, Berger, Polish & Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., D. S. Bowie, Jr., Allentown, Pa., of Mack Trucks, Inc., Bruce W. Kauffman, of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Coleman, Harold E. Kohn, Philadelphia, Pa., Forrest A. Hainline, Jr., of Cross, Wroek, Miller & Vieson, Walter J. Williams, Paul A. Heinen, William E. Huth, of Chrysler Corp., Ross L. Malone, Robert A. Nitschke, of General Motors, Detroit, Mich., William C. Marchiondo, Albuquerque, N. M., Norris L. O’Neill, Hartford, Conn., Leo T. Zuckerman, of Denver, Colo., for appellees.
Before HAMLIN, BROWNING, and ELY, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This treble damage action under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, was directed against the three largest domestic automobile manufacturers. It was instituted by ten Chicago aider-men, individually and on behalf of that city’s residents under Rule 23. Their claim is bottomed on the same factual allegations presented in In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, M.D.L. No. 31, 9 Cir., 481 F.2d 122, in which our opinion has this day issued. The District Court held that the action could not be maintained under Rule 23 and this interlocutory appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), followed.
We need not reach the class action issues since the disposition of this appeal is controlled by our resolution of the standing issue under section 4 of the Clayton Act in Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, swpra. The appellants here alleged no injuries to commercial ventures or enterprises, and since they lack the requisite standing, the District Court will, upon remand, dismiss the action in its entirety.
Remanded with directions.

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