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 second 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:
Valmore H. MONETTE and Nannie B. Monette, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 10839.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 8, 1967.
Decided March 2, 1967.
James R. Harper, Atlanta, Ga. (Frank M. Eldridge, Atlanta, Ga., and A. E. S. Stephens, Smithfield, Va., and Johnson, Harper, Daniel & Ward, Atlanta, Ga., on brief), for petitioners.
Marco S. Sonnenschein, Attorney, Department of Justice (Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and David O. Walter, Attorneys, Department of Justice, on brief), for respondent.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and J. SPENCER BELL and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The individual taxpayers and a number of controlled corporations prevailed in the Tax Court on a number of issues, but the Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s disallowance of farm losses as deductions on the income tax return of the individual taxpayer and his wife.
Here, in spite of consistent and very substantial losses of the farm and the relatively small gross receipts it produced, it is contended that the farm was a business venture and not a hobby. Additionally, it is contended that the expense of operation of the farm was an ordinary expense incident to Monette’s individual business as a manufacturers’ agent, despite the fact that all the gross receipts from that business were allocated by him among his numerous corporations.
Whether or not the farm was a business or a hobby is essentially a question of fact. Some of the subordinate facts point in one direction, while others point in the opposite. We think the Tax Court’s ultimate finding of fact is not clearly erroneous, for the reasons stated by it. We accept it, while rejecting the alternative theory that the operation of the farm is deductible by Monette on his individual return as an ordinary business expense of the manufacturers’ agent’s business, none of the gross receipts of which were received by him.
Affirmed.
. V. H. Monette & Company, Incorporated et al. v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 15.

Question: This question concerns the second 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