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:
KUPPERMAN v. M. & J. BECKER, Inc.
No. 209, Docket 22228.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted April 8, 1952.
Decided Aug. 15, 1952.
Clark, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Irving Rozen, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Morris M. Marcus, New York City, Friedman & Friedman, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant-appellee.
Before CHASE, BIGGS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
On September 4, 1947, the plaintiff, Kupperman, brought suit in the court below to recover from his employer, the defendant, M. & J. Becker, Inc., a New York City manufacturer of hats and caps, overtime wages alleged to be due him and an additional equal amount by way of liquidated damages, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216. Jurisdiction was founded on Section 16(b) of the Act and on 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The defendant interposed as its principal defense the contention that Kupperman fell within the exemptions of Section 13 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213, which provide that “(a) The provisions of sections 206 and 207 of this title shall not apply with respect to (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Administrator)”. The defendant’s position was and is that Kupperman at all times was employed by it in a bona fide executive capacity within the meaning of the exemption provided by Congress in the statute and as defined by the Administrator.
The complaint sought recovery fo the whole period of the plaintiff’s employment by the defendant, commencing in the third week of April 1939 and ending in August 1947. The court below restricted recovery, if there should be any, to the period commencing September 4, 1941, the earliest effective date within New York’s six-year statute of limitations. See N. Y. Civil Practice Act, Section 48. A further restriction on the period involved was imposed when it appeared from the evidence that in May 1945 Kupperman had become a union employee and had renounced all claim to unpaid overtime wages earned thereafter.
The court below, as the trier of the facts, concluded that the defendant had met the burden imposed on it to prove that the plaintiff was employed in a bona fide executive capacity as defined by the Administrator, Wages and Hours Division, United States Department of Labor, during the period September 4, 1941 to May 1945. The court took the position that the defendant had the obligation to, and did, prove that the plaintiff’s employment fell within each and every requirement of an “executive” as required by the Administrator’s Regulations, Section 541.1, 29 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 541.1. See Fanelli v. United States Gypsum Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 216; Stanger v. Vocafilm Corp., 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 894, 162 A.L.R. 216; McComb v. Utica Knitting Co., 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 670. We set forth the requirements of the pertinent Regulations in the margin. The court below entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and the appeal at bar followed. The only substantial question before us is whether the court below has made the necessary findings of fact and whether any finding of fact was clearly erroneous. See Rule 52(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S. C.A., and McComb v. Utica Knitting Co., supra.
The plaintiff testified that in April 1939 he was unemployed and on relief; that in the latter part of April he commenced work at the defendant’s place of business at 2961 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn; and that he continued there throughout the period here in question. Kupperman further stated that in 1941 he was employed by the defendant in its “Parkahood” department, existing on the lower warehouse floor of the building occupied in part by the defendant, and that he was subsequently moved upstairs to its principal “Cap-making” department late in 1942 when the defendant stopped making parkahoods. The plaintiff said that he was a cutter of caps by trade, and testified to long hours of weekday and weekend overtime employment as a cutter. He admitted, however, that on the lower warehouse floor he handed out work to women there employed as cutters and kept the records of their employment; that the defendant was organized as a union shop and that its employees were required to punch time cards; that he, Kupperman, did not join a union until May 1945, when, for the first time, he was issued a time card; and that he was on such terms with Jacob Becker, the president of defendant, that he received several Christmas bonuses and rode home from work each day in President Becker’s automobile.
Kupperman also asserted that the records of the defendant surely had been falsified since he was listed therein as a foreman and shown to have worked only a 40 hour week. On cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that he had received a sum of money in settlement of a suit he had brought in the Municipal Court of New York against Bushwick Mills, Inc. for wages for August through October 1942. He explained that he was promised compensation by Bush-wick Mills to speed performance by the defendant of a contract to make army caps. The plaintiff testified that he had brought suit against Bushwick Mills, Inc. because “Mr. Becker said to me, ‘I am on the outs with [Bushwick Mills, Inc.] and I would like to get even with Margolin.’ ” and because “At the time I was really mad. I was not getting the money.”
Licato, an operator of a sewing machine on the defendant’s lower floor, testified that Kupperman was employed on that floor to “ * * * take care of the girls, and he used to cut out work once in a while.” Licato also said that the plaintiff assigned work to the women employees, kept records, gave out payroll envelopes, was consulted about complaints, and that she was in fact hired by him.
President Becker testified that he had hired Kupperman “to be a foreman,” that “He came up to manage the place,” and that a cutter was not in fact needed. Becker stated that the plaintiff hired and fired the “Parkahood” girls, and fixed their wages; that Kupperman rarely worked after the usual quitting time of 5:00 P.M. and then came upstairs to wait for his ride home; and that he received pay for his occasional weekend work at Ozone Park where Becker had another place of business, or was paid by Bushwick Mills, Inc., and for his Sunday work at 2961 Atlantic Avenue during August through October 1942. Becker testified that the plaintiff also received pay for periods when he was sick and did not work, which would not have been the case had he been employed by the hour; that throughout the period in question Kupperman remained free of the union because he was a foreman; and that it was for this reason that the plaintiff was entitled to bonuses. Becker explained that when the plaintiff moved upstairs from the “Parkahood” department he “helped the foreman,” “[gave out] the goods to cut,” “walked around the floor,” “watch[ed] * * * the packing,” and only worked at cutting “a couple of times a week, a couple of .hours a day.” Becker also stated that when the plaintiff moved upstairs he served as co-foreman with Steinberg, conceded by all to have been a foreman..
Steinberg testified that the plaintiff “prepared the material for the cutters” and that he did not remember seeing the plaintiff himself employed in cutting at any time. This testimony was corroborated by Brown, a cutter, who indicated that the plaintiff was not needed as a cutter, for he, Brown, by operating a “clicker” machine was, together with other cutters, able to supply sufficient cut goods for the sewers. Schurman, bookkeeper and sister-in-law to Becker, stated in further corroboration that Kupperman was a foreman and not a cutter and that her records were correct in showing that he had not earned compensable overtime.
The foregoing is ample to support the following findings of fact made by the court below:
“9. Plaintiff in many instances remained after working hours for the sole purpose of obtaining a ride home in the automobile of Becker, his employer.
“10. Plaintiff never spent any considerable time at defendant’s establishment on Saturdays or Sundays or before office hours, except possibly to lay out work for the other employees to do.
Plaintiff’s primary duty consisted in the management at first of the so-called Parka hood department on the first floor, and afterwards as foreman on the upper floor. 11.
“12. As part of his duties plaintiff customarily and regularly directed the work of several employees. Plaintiff also had the right to hire and fire employees and he customarily and regularly exercised discretionary power.
“14. Plaintiff did some cutting from time to time but the time spent on such activity amounted to only a very small fraction (less than 20 per cent) of the time spent on other duties.”
It will be observed, therefore, that the court below, item by item, has made all necessary findings, save one, as to the qualifications of an executive as required by the Regulations, paragraphs (a) through (f), Section 541.1, 29 U.S.C.A. See footnote 7, supra. There was ample evidence to support the findings made. Indeed, the weight of the evidence appears to favor the defendant’s contentions for, as noted by the court below, the fact that the plaintiff did not join the union until 1945, a date lying outside the period with which we are concerned, is very persuasive. It was indeed unlikely that Kupperman’s tasks became less managerial in character when he was moved to the defendant’s principal manufacturing floor for his salary continued to rise steadily.
But one essential finding was not made by the court below, viz., that relating to the plaintiff’s salary rates throughout the whole of the critical period. If the plaintiff received less than $30 a week he would not fall within the purview of earlier subpara-graph “(f),” applicable during the period with which we are concerned. See 5 F.R. 4077. The change in the regulation was effected December 24, 1949 and therefore is not pertinent here. See note 7, supra. It is abundantly clear from the testimony on these points, however, that the plaintiff’s salary rates were at all times within the required limitations of earlier subparagraph “(f).” We set them forth in the margin. To sum this point up we state that there would seem to be no doubt that the plaintiff received at least no less than the amount specified by subparagraph (f). We cannot, however, make the necessary finding since as an appellate tribunal we are without the power to do so.
Accordingly the judgment of the court below is vacated and the cause remanded. If the court below shall find that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding which we have indicated should be made, the trial judge will possess the authority to make such a finding and re-enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
. It was stipulated by the parties that M. & J. Becker, Inc. was a corporation engaged in interstate commerce.
. Relating to maximum hours and overtime.
. Administrator, Wages and Hours Division, United States Department of Labor.
. The two year statute of limitations of the Portal-to-Portal Act does not apply. See 29 U.S.O.A. § 255(c). There is no issue as to any statute of limitations.
. Trial was had to the court.
. No opinion for publication.
. Regulations, Section 541(1), 29 U.S.C.A. Appendix, provides and provided (with the exception of subparagraph (f)) as follows:
“The term ‘employee employed in a bona fide executive * * * capacity’ in section 13(a) (1) of the act shall mean any employee:
“(a) Whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; and
“(b) Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees therein; and .
“(c) Who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight; and
“(d) Who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers; and
“(e) Who does not devote more than 20 percent of his hours worked in the workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section: Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply in the case of an employee who is in sole charge of an independent establishment or a physically separated branch establishment, or who owns at least a 20-pereent interest in the enterprise in which he is employed; and
“(f) Who is compensated for his services on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $55 per week (or $30 per week if employed in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands) exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities:
“Provided, That an employee who is compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $100 per week (exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities), and whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, and includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees therein, shall be deemed to meet all of the requirements of this section.”
It will be noted that the provision of subparagraph “(f),” supra, quoted supra, states that the salary of one who is to be considered an “executive" must amount to not less than “$55. per week.” At the time the suit was filed and the plaintiff was first employed the amount required was $30. a week. The increase in the amount was effected December 24, 1949. See 14 F.R. 7705-6.
. Bushwick Mills, Inc. was the prime Government contractor under contract for the manufacture of caps for the United States Army. The defendant was a subcontractor thereunder.
. Margolin apparently was employee! in some executive capacity at Bushwick Mills, Inc. He is not otherwise identified in the record.
. Becker stated that Kupperman worked an extra half-hour “maybe once a year.”
. According to the payroll records of Becker, Inc., Defendant’s Exhibit C, Steinberg’s salary was at all times less than Kupperman’s. For example, for the week ending September 4,1943, Steinberg earned $50 as compared to Kupperman’s $65.
. We are not unmindful of the fact that Hershkovitz, Manager, Capmakers’ Union, Local No. 2, which local had jurisdiction at the defendant’s shop between 1941 and 1946, stated that he found the plaintiff employed in cutting on one occasion in 1943 and had told both Becker and the plaintiff that the latter “ * * * would have to join the union.” Hersh-kovitz testified to the response to this demand as follows: “And both told me— both Kupperman and Becker told me: Well, he was a foreman. And so did Kupperman.”
. The pertinent portion of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 in the court below shows the following:
“Weekly Earnings of George Kupperman:
* * *
Nov. 22 1940 to March 7 1942 ...........................40 00
March 14 1942 to July 4 1942 ............................ 415 00
July 11 1942 to March 27 1943 ........................... 55 00 — and collecting money from Bushwick Mills
April 3 1943 to July 10 1943 ............................. 60 00
July 17 1943 to May 12 1945 ............................. 65 00
Left our employ May 12 1945, demanding a $375.00 bond for bonus. Re-hired May 26 on Union insistence that he become a Union cutter.
* * *
Extras:
Dec. 22 1942 50 00 Bonus
Sept. 23 1943 , 50 00 “
Dec. 23 1943 63 13 “
June 23 1944 100 00) to be deducted
June 2 19441 100 00) out from June 3 to June 30 1944
Dec. 22 1944 ............................. 86 20 Bonus
Dec. 24 1945 .............................100 00 Loan not repaid
Jan. 23 1045 to May 1st 1945 — $10.00 weekly.”

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: 5