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:
ROTAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 6116.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 25, 1932.
See, also, 43 F.(2d) 232.
Selden Leavell, of Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Wm. Cutler Thompson, and Whitney North Seymour, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and James K. Polk, Jr., Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In this ease the following facts appear without dispute: Hugo Y. Neuhaus had been' conducting a brokerage business at Houston, Tex., for a number of years, under the firm name of Neuhaus & Co. By written agreements, the petitioner, George Y. Rotan, became a partner in the firm for five years, from January 1, 1920. In addition to the capital invested, Rotan paid Neuhaus individually $37,500 for a five-fourteenth interest in the good will of the business. The agreements provided that, in the event of Rotan’s death or incapacity before the expiration of the partnership, a proportionate amount of the money paid for good will would be returned to him or his estate. No’ provision was made to return anything paid for good will at the expiration of the partnership by limitation or its dissolution otherwise. In making his returns for income taxes for the year 1922, Rotan sought to deduct one-fifth of the amount paid for good will as an expense of doing business, on the theory that there was no salable good will of the business, and therefore the amount paid to Neuhaus was in fact a bonus for the privilege of sharing in the profits of the business. The Commissioner ruled against this contention, and disallowed the deduction. On appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, the Commissioner was affirmed. 17 B. T. A. 1192.
We need not further review the facts nor discuss the law. The same ruling was made by the Commissioner in respect of other years, and the identical question was presented to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas and there decided adversely to petitioner’s contentions. ” The facts and the law are exhaustively reviewed in the opinion of the District Court. 43 F.(2d) 232. We refer to that decision with approval.
We concur in the rulings of the Board. The petition is denied.

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: 5