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:
Wade HANFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7132.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 19, 1956.
Decided April 9, 1956.
Wade Hanford, pro se.
Hugh E. Monteith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sylva, N. C. (J. M. Baley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Asheville, N. C., and William I. Ward, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Statesville, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a criminal case in which appellant with two other persons was convicted of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to rob a bank, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The conspiracy was clearly established on the trial and an overt act was shown to have been committed in the Western District of North Carolina. The contention of appellant is that no crime under federal law was committed because the robbery was not consummated and no property insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was actually taken. He contends, also, that counsel appointed by the court to represent him was not competent. There is no merit in either point. The crime of conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the crime that is its object. “Its essence is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime, and that is what is punishable as a conspiracy, if any overt act is taken in pursuit of it. The agreement is punishable whether or not the contemplated crime is consummated.” United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 542, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1399, 91 L.Ed. 1654. No basis is shown for the contention that counsel was not competent. Appellant contends that counsel would not argue that the indictment did not charge a crime under federal law and that he did not object to impeaching questions asked appellant when the latter took the stand. It is clear, however, that counsel was correct with respect to both of these matters and that neither furnished any ground for the attack which appellant makes upon him.
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