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:
In the Matter of INLAND GAS CORPORATION, Debtor, Kentucky Fuel Gas Corporation, Debtor, American Fuel & Power Company, Debtor.
No. 12381.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1954.
Robert S. Spilman, Charleston, W. Va., Thomas S. Dawson, Louisville, Ky., for appellants.
Selden S. McNeer, Huntington, W. Va., for Ben Williamson, Trustee.
John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., for C. M. Harbison, trustee.
Milbank, Tweed & Hope, New York City, for Vanston Committee.
Oscar S. Rosner, New York City, for Green Committee.
Carlos L. Israels, New York City, for Paul E. Kern.
Wilkie, Owen, Farr, Gallagher & Walton, New York City, for Kentucky Fuel Gas Corp.
C. J. Odenweller, Cleveland, Ohio, for Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
A joint petition by common stockholders of American Fuel & Power Company for modification of a confirmed plan of reorganization was submitted to the District Judge having charge of reorganization of the Debtors. Its purpose was to obtain for the petitioners an option to purchase the stock of the reorganized corporation appropriated to the payment of the secured creditors of the American Fuel & Power Company, the petitioners conceiving that successful operation by the trustee had substantially increased the value of Inland’s assets over that originally determined by the District Court. After full hearing, wherein the petition was opposed by committees representing the security holders of the debtors, the trustee of Inland and Kentucky Fuel, and disapproved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the District Court, finding no merit in the effort of American’s common stockholders to capture any residual equity that may exist in Inland’s assets, so long as creditors are unsatisfied, entered an order, on the 7th day of September, 1954, dismissing the joint petition, Whereupon, the petitioners appealed.
On November 16, 1954, the Green Committee, acting for the note-holders of American, moved this court to docket the appeal and to dismiss it as frivolous, a sham, and without merit, or, in the alternative, to advance the cause to an early date for ■ argument, with or without briefs. All of the objectors below have filed memoranda in support of the motion to docket and dismiss, which we have carefully reviewed.
In the Matter of Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 211 F.2d 381, we gave approval to the amended plan of reorganization adopted by the District Court. We cited the long history of the proceed* ings, the numerous appeals reviewed by us and held that “in so far as the percentage assigned to American is not now needed for complete liquidation of its secured obligations, it is now available to Kentucky bondholders.” Throughout our many opinions, it has been made clear that the subordination of the Columbia claims was for the benefit of the security-holders of American Fuel and Kentucky Fuel, and that until the debts to both were satisfied, there was no occasion to consider any stockholder interest in either. We declined also to direct a new evaluation of Inland assets. We see nothing to be gained except delay in further hearing or argument. The issue is clear. The appeal is without merit and it is hereby
Dismissed.

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