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:
Ottis Mayo JONES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7175.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 5, 1956.
Decided June 18, 1956.
No attorney for appellant.
J. Jefferson Miller, II, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Walter E. Black, Jr., U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and MOORE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a criminal case in which appellant was convicted and sentenced for the crime of interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The securities involved were drafts payable to appellant and purporting to be signed by M. J. Watson. Watson was the name of a fictitious person; and the signing of that name by appellant was the forgery alleged. Forgery may be predicated of the use of an assumed or fictitious name when this is with intent to defraud. Lyman v. State, 136 Md. 40, 109 A. 548, 9 A.L.R. 401 and note. And a draft is a security within the meaning of the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2311. The case here is distinguishable from that presented in Greathouse v. United States, 4 Cir., 170 F.2d 512 in that appellant here did not disclose that he had signed Watson’s name to the draft or pretend that he was authorized by Watson to sign his name, as in the Greathouse case. The contention now made that he sometimes used the name of Watson as his own name is without merit in view of the fact that in handling the drafts he was representing himself to be Jones. Other questions raised by appellant, to the effect that an assistant United States Attorney had talked to a juror and that the record certified to this court is not accurate, are so lacking in any substance as not to warrant either discussion or notice.
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: 1