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:
Henry Lee ROGERS et al., Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY et al., Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 74-1086, 74-1087, 74-1101 and 74-1115.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 1975.
Philip E. Kaplan, Little Rock, Ark., and Deborah M. Greenberg, New York City, for Rogers, and others.
Thompson Powers and James D. Hutchinson, Washington, D.C., for Int. Paper Co.
William L. Massey, Youngdahl & Larrison, Little Rock, Ark., for Paperworkers.
Eugene R. Warren, Little Rock, Ark., for Local 2033.
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On January 7, 1975, this court issued its memorandum opinion remanding the above-entitled cases to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed therein. In that memorandum opinion we specifically held that the trial court “should review I.P.’s administration of its policy of advancement of affected class members to their rightful place in light of I.P.’s military rightful place policy, with a view toward rendering whole these former discriminatees as expeditiously as possible and to the same extent that it now accords a rightful place to returning service men. Provisions of this relief should be made available to all affected class members regardless of whether they have declined transfer offers in the past. If these conditions are fully implemented, the need for a back pay award will be obviated.” Rogers v. International Paper Co., 510 F.2d 1340, 1356-1357 (8th Cir. 1975).
An appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by Rogers and other plaintiffs from the denial of back pay. On October 6, 1975, the Supreme Court entered the following order:
THIS CAUSE having been submitted on the petition for writ of certiorari and response thereto,
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said United States Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated with costs; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975).
Upon further consideration of the record and the intervening case of Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975) this court now directs that upon retrial of this case the district court shall consider the issue of back pay, together with the other issues of the case, and make its determination as to whether back pay should be awarded under the guidelines set forth in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, id. If, under those guidelines, back pay is determined to be properly awarded the district court shall determine the identity of those entitled to the back pay, the amount each is entitled to receive and the amount, or percentage of the total, each of the defendants shall be required to contribute to the award.
The memorandum opinion of this court dated January 7, 1975, as amended by the denial of rehearing en banc of February 14, 1975, shall in all other respects remain in full force and effect and the district court shall set these cases for rehearing within a reasonable time from the date of this order.

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