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:
W. S. KILROY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 9358.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 23, 1968.
J. Evans Attwell, and Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston, Tex., filed a statement on behalf of petitioner.
Peter H. Schiff, Sol., Federal Power Commission, filed a statement on behalf of respondent.
Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Kilroy seeks review of Opinions Nos. 498 and 498-A, and accompanying orders, of the Federal Power Commission. The issues relate to the authority of the Commission to order refunds on unconditioned temporary certificates granted pursuant to § 7 of the Natural Gas Act and to the manner of exercise of that authority. Six other petitions relating to the same opinions and orders were either filed in or transferred to this court. Because of the pendency of Supreme Court review of our decision in Sunray DX Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 10 Cir., 370 F.2d 181, all petitioners agreed that the review of Opinions Nos. 498 and 498-A should be deferred until the Supreme Court had acted on Sunray DX. Accordingly, we ordered all the petitions to be held in abeyance.
In Federal Power Commission v. Sun-ray DX Oil Co., 391 U.S. 9, 40-47, 88 S. Ct. 1526, 20 L.Ed.2d 388, the Supreme Court upheld not only the authority of the Commission to order such refunds but also the manner in which that authority was exercised in Opinions Nos. 501 and 501-A. We then directed the petitioners attacking Opinions Nos. 498 and 498-A to express their views in regard to further proceedings. All those petitioners except Kilroy have agreed that their petitions should be dismissed. Kilroy urges that the Commission erred in failing to consider his equities and in requiring 7% interest on the refunds.
In Sunray DX the Court upheld the refunds ordered pursuant to Opinions Nos. 501 and 501-A. Those opinions followed Opinions Nos. 492 and 492-A which we considered and upheld in Skelly Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 10 Cir., 401 F.2d 726. In that decision we said that, on the refund issue presented, Sunray DX is controlling in the absence of exceptional and distinguishing facts. We have now examined Opinions Nos. 498 and 498-A and the Kilroy petition for review and find no exceptional and distinguishing facts. Accordingly, Sun-ray DX is decisive.
Kilroy’s attack on the interest rate is disposed of in our Skelly opinion mentioned above and needs no further elaboration.
The petition for review is denied.
. 36 FPC 149 and 981.
. 15 U.S.C. §§ 717-717w.
. See our docket Nos. 9220, 9307, 9340, 9341, 9357 and 9359.
. 36 FPC 309 and 962.
. Appropriate orders of dismissal were entered on July 15, 1968.
. 35 FPO 849 and 36 FPC 143.
. The Commission considered the unusual situation of Kilroy in one of its dockets and ordered no refund in that particular instance. See Opinion No. 498, 36 FPC 149, 153-154.

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