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:
Lorenzo WHITE, Joyce Harper and Ruby Fields, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15667.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
April 11, 1958.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1958.
Robert J. McNealy, Everett W. Hepp, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellants.
George M. Yeager, U. S. Atty., Paula A. Tennant, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, HEALY and LEMMON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On May 25, 1956, appellants (Lorenzo White, Joyce Harper and Ruby Fields) and others were indicted in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska. The indictment was in seven counts. Count 1 charged appellants with having violated § 4724(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4724(b). Count 2 charged appellants with having violated 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. Counts 3 and 7 charged appellants with having violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. Counts 4 and 5 did not charge any of the appellants with any offense. Count 6 charged Fields with having violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 1716, but did not charge White or Harper with any offense. Appellants were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, had a jury trial, were found guilty as charged, were sentenced and have appealed. Appellants’ brief contains no specification of errors. We have examined the record and have found no reversible error.
Judgments affirmed.
. Also known as Ruby Jeanette Fields, as Ruby Mayfield and as Pearline Adams.
. Penalties for violating § 4724(b) are prescribed in § 7237 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
. Three judgments were entered — one sentencing White, one sentencing Harper, one sentencing Melds.
. Our Rule 18, 28 U.S.C.A. provides:
“1. Counsel for the appellant shall file with the clerk of this court 20 copies of a printed brief * * *
“2. This brief shall contain * * *
“(d) In all cases a specification of errors relied upon which shall be numbered and shall set out separately and particularly each error intended to be urged. * * * »

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