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:
William Eugene BEARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 71-1747.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 23, 1972.
William Eugene Beard, in pro. per.
Charles H. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Fred D. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee on brief.
Before McCREE and KENT, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
We consider an appeal from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed 248 (1954). Appellant is currently incarcerated in a penal institution of the State of Tennessee, but he is subject to concurrent federal sentences of 5, 10, and 50 years imposed after his convictions of conspiracy, receiving and concealing proceeds of bank robberies, and murder. The petition points out that appellant’s defense attorney had conflicting interests because he represented one of appellant’s co-indictees, John W. Lee-man, who testified for the government at appellant’s trial.
The District Court reviewed the trial record, which reveals that the issues presented by this petition were fully explored at trial, and found no prejudice. We have considered the record and the opinion of this court in United States v. Etheridge, 424 F.2d 951 (6th Cir. 1970), and we determine that the District Court’s holding that there was no denial of the effective assistance of counsel is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby 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