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:
UNITED STATES of America v. John H. ISENHOWER, Appellant.
No. 84-5474.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Feb. 8, 1985.
Decided Feb. 13, 1985.
John H. Isenhower, pro se.
Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., U.S. Atty., William C. Carpenter, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., for appellee.
Before SEITZ, GIBBONS and SLOVI-TER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, John H. Isenhower, was convicted after a jury trial of failing to file income tax returns for the calendar years 1980 and 1981 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. The evidence at trial showed that Isenhower received gross income during calendar year 1980 of $30,321.67 and during calendar year 1981 of $14,136.87, and that he failed to file any income tax returns for those years.
On appeal, Isenhower, appearing pro se, does not challenge the government’s factual assertions. Instead, he contends in essence that the district court lacked jurisdiction to try him for criminal tax offenses. His arguments are, “that the Congress of the United States ... has never conferred upon the District Courts within the Federal Government, or any other Court, criminal jurisdiction over God-created persons.” Brief for Appellant at 1. “The second reason is that in examining the Constitution Congress only has the power over three (3) types of crimes! [counterfeiting, felonies on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations, and treason].” Id. “The third reason is that within the whole of Title 18 of the United States Code, exists all the law (sic) on any federal crime that could be committed against the United States.” Id. at 2. The district court rejected these challenges, as do we.
Jurisdiction over tax matters has been explicitly given to the district courts by Congress, which provided that the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment empower Congress to create and enforce an income tax. The statute under which Isenhower was convicted plainly falls within that authority. Finally, there is no precedent nor rationale to support Isenhower’s contention that all of the criminal laws of the United States must be placed in Title 18.
We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Furthermore, the grounds asserted in this appeal are plainly frivolous. We will, therefore, today issue an Order to Show Cause why we should not “award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee” as authorized under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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: 1