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 second 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:
John P. GAWLER and Annabel C. Gawler, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. Robert H. MYERS and Antoinette H. Myers, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. Katherine L. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. John H. MYERS and Eleanor B. Myers, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. Berkeley L. SIMMONS, Jr., and Virginia T. Simmons, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. Robert L. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
Nos. 74-1185 to 74-1190.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 2, 1974.
Decided Oct. 18, 1974.
Bruce R. Hopkins, Washington, D. C. (Williams, Myers & Quiggle, Washington, D. C., on brief) for. appellants.
Alfred S. Lombardi, Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice (Scott P. Cramp-ton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Roth-wacks and Jonathan S. Cohen, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, on brief), for appellee.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Judge Winter and Judge Craven agree that the judgment of the tax court should be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Tannen-wald, writing for the majority in Gawler v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 647 (1973); while Judge Boreman would reverse for the reasons set forth by Judge Drennen, dissenting in that case.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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