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:
Ex parte LEY GAY SEONG. LEY GAY SEONG v. CARR.
No. 6044.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 2, 1930.
You Chung Hong, of Los Angeles, Cal. (George W. Hott and Chas. E. Booth, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and P. V. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Harry E. Blee, U. S. Immigration Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., on the brief), for appellee.
Before RUDKIN and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and KERRIGAN, District Judge.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The question for decision is, Was the appellant barred from admission to the United States by reason of his age? The controlling fafrts are as follows: The appellant is the son of a Chinese merchant lawfully domiciled in the United States. He was bom in, China on June 14, 1908. On May 21, 1929, he embarked on the steamship “President McKinley” and was manifested to the port of San Pedro, Cal. The vessel arrived at the port of San Francisco on June 12, 1929, and remained there for about three days before proceeding to San Pedro. She did not arrive at San Pedro until June 16, 1929. It will thus be seen that the appellant attained his majority while the vessel was in the port of San Francisco, and was three days above the age of majority when the vessel arrived in San Pedro, the port to which he was manifested.
The right of minor children of domiciled Chinese merchants to enter the United States is not expressly guaranteed by treaty or statute, but rests on judicial construction only. Wong Ock Jee v. Weedin (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 962. In that case the applicant attained his majority while on the high seas, en route to the United States on an American vessel, and it was- held that his application for ad-' mission was: properly denied. The plain inference from that decision is that an applicant such as the appellant must apply for admission during his minority, or; at least, must arrive at the port to which he is manifested during the period of minority.
Some stress seems to be laid on Rule 9 of the Rules of the Immigration Department, which provides: “No alien Chinese twenty-one years of ago or over, American reckoning, at tho time of arrival at a port of the United States, shall be permitted to enter otherwise than of his own individual status as a member of tho exempt classes and upon presentation of the certificate prescribed by-Section 6 of the Act of July 5, 1884, and the visa required by tho Immigration Act of 1924, irrespective of whether or not he is a member of the household of his exempt merchant father.”
Tho language, “a port of the United States,” might doubtless be construed to mean any port of the United States, regardless of the port to which the alien is manifested, but a departmental rule which would admit an alien of this class who did not apply for admission, or reach the port at which he could lawfully be admitted, until after attaining his majority, would be of doubtful validity, to say the least. The appellant did not and could not apply for admission at the port of San Francisco, and his mere presence there at the time of attaining his majority did not of itself entitle him to be admitted at the proper port three days thereafter.
The order is affirmed.

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: 0