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:
Helen RIDINGER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Clara D. Johnson et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 71-1934, 71-1937.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 20, 1972.
Decided Oct. 13, 1972.
Dennis E. Murray, Sandusky, Ohio (Murray & Murray Co., Sandusky, Ohio, Thomas C. Waechter, Bieser, Greer & Landis, Dayton, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Charles P. Pfarrer, Dayton, Ohio (Cowden, Pfarrer, Crew & Becker, Dayton, Ohio, Ross L. Malone, Detroit, Mich., on brief), for General Motors.
Susan Deller Ross, EEOC, Washington, D. C. (Howard Besser, Dist. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, on brief), amici curiae for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Ruth Weyand, Washington, D. C., and Sorrell Logethetis, Knee, Snyder & Parks, Dayton, Ohio (Winn Newman, Washington, D. C., and Richard Rice, Kettering, Ohio, on brief), for Union.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, KENT, Circuit Judge, and Mc-ALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
These appeals are from judgments entered in the trial court disposing of cases which were commenced as class actions under the provisions of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The trial court, 325 F.Supp. 1089, failed to determine whether the actions could be maintained as class actions as required by Rule 23(c), and the judgments from which these appeals are taken do not “include and describe those whom the court finds to be members of the class.”
It is, therefore, ordered that the judg-. ments of the trial court are reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for consideration in the light of this Court’s opinion in Manning v. International Union and General Motors Corp., 466 F.2d 812, decided September 11, 1972.

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: 5