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:
James F. ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. Alec W. BROWN and Lester J. Gendron et al., Appellees.
No. 21977.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth -Circuit.
Dec. 7, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1968.
James F. Armstrong, in pro. per.
Roy E. Wolfe, County Counsel, Madera County, Madera, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a second appeal in forma pauperis from a dismissal of appellant’s Civil rights complaint and cause of action, by which he sought “$100,000 damages, tax free,” from a California Justice Court Judge and a California County District Attorney for refusing to file a criminal complaint sought by appellant to have filed some nine years after the occurrence of the acts which it charged.
On the first appeal the district court, “on its own motion, and before issuance or service of process upon defendant, dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.” Armstrong v. Brown, 9 Cir., 352 F.2d 1023 (1965); Armstrong v. Rushing, 9 Cir., 352 F.2d 836 (1965). We therefore reversed, ordering that appellant was “entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard.” (352 F.2d at 837.)
Appellant has had such relief. His matter was heard by a second judge (C.T. 149-50), and the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. After motion by appellant to disqualify the judge so ruling against him, appellant filed an amended complaint, which was heard by a third judge, who held the proceeding “was utterly frivolous and malicious within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d),” and hence dismissed the complaint and the cause of action. Stiltner v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 322 F.2d 314 (1963), Brown v. Brown, 9 Cir., 368 F.2d 992 (1966).
We affirm the dismissal.

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