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:
Erlene S. POSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 27992.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 7, 1970.
Neil Taylor, Jr., Russellville, Ala., of Taylor & Taylor, Russellville, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Clopper Almon, Vincent McAlister, Sheffield, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM;
After the District Court granted partial summary judgment dismissing appellant’s claim for long-term disability benefits, a pretrial order was entered into by the parties by which it was stipulated that “the plaintiff’s claim has evolved into one count following numerous pleadings. In this count plaintiff claims of the defendant damages in the amount of $3,624 allegedly due under the Reynolds Security Program Sick Pay Benefits.” The case was called for trial and a consent judgment in favor of plaintiff was entered in the sum of $736. The remaining count was thus disposed of.
If, despite the pretrial order, stipulations and judgment entered into, there still remains the question of the propriety of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee as to appellant’s claim for long-term disability benefits, it is our view that summary judgment was proper under the circumstances. It is clear from the exhibits and affidavits that the claim for long-term benefits is properly against Continental Casualty Company which issued a policy group insurance in favor of employees of defendant Reynolds Metals, of which appellant was one. The long-term disability plan was a voluntary one on the part of the employees and premium payments were made by employees by deductions from their salaries at Reynolds, which sums were then forwarded to Continental. The pamphlet literature distributed by Reynolds to its employees clearly stated that the LTD benefits were payable under the provisions of a group policy issued to Reynolds by Continental Casualty Company. Thereafter appellant received a certificate of insurance from Continental Casualty Company describing the benefits in detail. (App. p. 66.) There can be no dispute under the various exhibits and affidavits submitted by the parties that the long-term disability benefits were the liability solely of Continental Casualty Company, and not of defendant. The court below apparently also took judicial cognizance of the pen-dency of a suit by appellant for the same long-term disability benefits against Continental Casualty Company originally filed in Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama, subsequently removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, from which the instant appeal is taken. That suit, and not this one, will ultimately determine whether appellant is entitled to such benefits.
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