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:
William L. HASHWAY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 84-1397.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 1985.
Decided Feb. 26, 1985.
William L. Hashway, pro se.
Daniel K. Kinder and Powers & McAn-drew, Providence, R.I., on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before BREYER, ALDRICH and TOR-RUELLA, Circuit Judges.
BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Hashway sued his former employer, Ciba-Geigy Corp., in three counts. The first sought severance pay pursuant to a so-called “Long-Term Disability Plan,” an alleged contract contained in a document entitled “Ciba-Geigy and You.” The second, rather difficult to comprehend, appears to say that he was wrongfully discharged for making a Workers’ Compensation Claim. The third alleges that defendant paid what was due plaintiff under its Investment Savings Plan to plaintiff’s wife instead of to him. Defendant responded with a Motion to Dismiss, allegedly filed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Since the motion included factual grounds set forth in an “incorporated” memorandum of law, we must treat it as a motion for summary judgment under F.R.Civ.P. 56.
The accompanying memorandum of law was replete with references to an affidavit, depositions, and the transcript of a Workers’ Compensation hearing. However, defendant’s submitted appendix on appeal does not contain the affidavit, and contains only portions of the rest. The record does include a copy of a release, and since the court dismissed on that ground alone we will consider it and not the various other defenses defendant sought to raise. On that basis we reverse.
The record shows that, after sustaining an allegedly work-connected injury, plaintiff made claim upon defendant’s Workers’ Compensation carrier. After discharge of his attorney plaintiff entered into a lump sum settlement with the carrier, and executed, subject to approval for fairness by the Commission, the following release.
GENERAL RELEASE
Know all Men, That I, William Hash-way, of the Town of Cumberland, State of Rhode Island, in consideration of the sum of Thirty-Six Thousand ($36,000) ■Dollars to me paid by Ciba-Geigy Corp. and Insurance Company of North America the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim unto said Ciba-Geigy Corp. and Insurance Company of North America its or their successors and assigns, all and any manner of actions, cause of actions, debts, dues, claims and demands, both in law and equity more especially, all claims for compensation due under the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Rhode Island, in connection with that certain accident which occurred on the 3rd day of December, 1975, which against said Ciba-Geigy Corp. I, the said William Hashway ever had, now have, or in the future may have for or by reason or means of any matter or thing from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of these presents.
The district court held that, the Commission having approved the settlement, the release was unambiguous, and that if plaintiff made a mistake, the mistake was unilateral, and reformation for a unilateral mistake is impermissible. Boccarossa v. Watkins, 112 R.I. 551, 556-57, 313 A.2d 135 (1973). The court erred in two respects, as examination of the Commission hearing makes apparent.
The fairness hearing was attended by the unrepresented plaintiff, counsel for the carrier, and counsel for the defendant. The following, inter alia, transpired. Commissioner to plaintiff,
Q. “You have settled your case directly with the Insurance Company of North America for $36,000.00?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “You understand that if you settle this case today for the total sum of $36,-000.00, that you will no longer have any claim for your compensable injury against Ciba-Geigy or Insurance Company of North America?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “If you have to go back to a hospital or doctor, you have to pay for it yourself?”
A. “Yes.”
Elsewhere the transcript makes clear that, contrary to the statement in the release that the $36,000 was paid by defendant and the carrier, it was paid by the carrier alone, and that plaintiff was so informed. Thus not only was it represented to plaintiff, affirmatively by the carrier and by defendant’s counsel’s silence, that $36,000 was being paid for plaintiff’s Workers’ Comp, claim, but the Commissioner passed upon that figure, not $36,000 minus whatever might be the value of plaintiff’s other, totally independent claims, of a totally unknown amount. For defendant to say now that $36,000 was pro tanto incorrect would be, in effect, a fraud upon the Commission. It should be estopped from so doing.
The same result would be reached by proper application of the doctrine of mistake. A mistake by one party with knowledge thereof by the other is equivalent to a mutual mistake; a party should not be benefitted by a mistake he knew the other had made. Century Plastic Corp. v. Tupper Corp., 333 Mass. 531, 533-36, 131 N.E.2d 740 (1956); 13 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1577 (Supp.1984), § 1578 (3d ed. 1970); see Perkins v. Kirby, 39 R.I. 343, 362, 97 Atl. 884 (1916); Votta v. Johnson, 89 R.I. 71, 74-76, 151 A.2d 112 (1959); cf. Vanderford v. Kettelle, 75 R.I. 130, 142, 64 A.2d 483 (1949). Having in mind that plaintiff was told it was the carrier that was paying the money, and that giving the release meant, “You will no longer have any claim for compensable injury,” (emphasis suppl.) it must be manifest that he would be thinking in terms of payment for his injury, and not for some unrelated claims as between himself and his employer. If defendant, at the time, was ignorant of the existence of other claims, there would have been a mutual mistake that should be rectified. If it was aware, and slyly kept silent, the result should be the same. This is not to say that reformation of releases is easily accomplished but the total circumstances here of record are irrefutable, and are peculiarly compelling.
The dismissal is reversed, and, on remand, the release is to be excluded.

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