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:
RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES.
No. 9545.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 25, 1947.
Decided Dec. 8, 1947.
Mr. M. Edward Buckley, Jr., of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. C. Frank Reifsnyder, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, Arthur J. McLaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney, and Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. John D. Lane, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has been convicted under an indictment which charged that he sold a certain narcotic drug “not in the original stamped package and not from the original stamped package.” Appellant contends that this does not sufficiently charge the statutory offense of selling a narcotic drug “except in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package.” 26 U.S.CsA. Int.Rev.Code, § 2553(a). But the indictment plainly excludes both of the statutory exceptions. The particular language in which it does .so is immaterial.
Appellant contends that evidence which was seized during a search should have been excluded, because of an asserted conflict between the affidavit on which the search warrant was based and the affiant!s subsequent testimony at the trial. We need not consider the effect of such a conflict, for none exists. The affidavit states, as though on personal knowledge, that appellant “did unlawfully sell” narcotic drugs “on or about the 8th day of August 1946”; and the only testimony at appellant’s trial that tended in any degree to show that the' affidavit was not in fact made on personal knowledge was affiant’s testimony that he did not “see” appellant “on the 8th of August, 1946.” [Italics supplied.]
Since the affidavit was not based on mere information and belief the Schencks case, 55 App.D.C. 84, 2 F.2d 185, has no bearing on this case.
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