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. Maria Dolores CAMARENA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-8562
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 1992.
Joseph Abraham, Jr., El Paso, Tex., for Maria D. Camarena.
Richard L. Durbin, Diane D. Kir stein, Asst. U.S. Attys., Ronald F. Ederer, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for the U.S.
Before KING, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Following a direct appeal of her conviction, Camarena filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Camarena appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
I
Maria Dolores Camarena was indicted on 58 counts of unlawfully structuring currency transactions with domestic financial institutions for the purpose of evading the currency reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a). The indictment charged that Camarena’s conduct was part of a pattern of illegal activity involving $545,-900 over a 12-month period, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(1) and (3) and 5322(b).
After a jury trial, Camarena was convicted on all 58 counts and sentenced to a prison term of five years for each count, to be served concurrently, and a fine of $250,-000. The district court suspended all but six months of the prison sentence and placed Camarena on unsupervised probation for a period of five years. Camarena’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Camarena, 863 F.2d 880 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106, 109 S.Ct. 3158, 104 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1989).
Following Camarena’s direct appeal, she filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Camarena’s motion put at issue the constitutionality of the currency reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a). According to Camarena, application of the statute violated her privilege against self-incrimination. The district court ordered the government to show cause why Camare-na’s motion should not be granted. Subsequently, the district court denied Camare-na’s motion, reasoning:
The statute and regulations require financial institutions, such as banks, to report currency transactions, not individuals such as the Petitioner. Consequently, there is no way in which the statute and regulations can violate her personal privilege against self-incrimination. United States v. Mickens, 926 F.2d 1323, 1331 (2d Cir.1991) [, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 940, 117 L.Ed.2d 111 (1992)]. Furthermore, the information financial institutions are required to report under Section 5313(a) does not necessarily implicate anyone in the commission of a crime. United States v. Mickens, supra at 1331.
Record on Appeal, vol. 1 at 5, No. 91-8562 (5th Cir. filed Oct. 28, 1991).
II
This court has not addressed the question whether the currency reporting statutes violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. The Second, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have, however, considered this question and they have all rejected the argument that the currency reporting statutes violate the Fifth Amendment. See Mickens, 926 F.2d at 1331; United States v. Hoyland, 914 F.2d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Kaatz, 705 F.2d 1237, 1242 (10th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Kimball, 711 F.Supp. 1031, 1032-34 (D.Nev.1989); United States v. Bucey, 691 F.Supp. 1077, 1084 (N.D.Ill.1988).
Although this circuit has not yet decided the issue whether the currency reporting statutes violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, we find the above-cited decisions well-reasoned and, accordingly, we hold that the currency reporting statutes do not violate Camarena’s privilege against self-incrimination.
Ill
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

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