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:
GRAFFI v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
December 1, 1927.
No. 3945.
1. Counterfeiting <©==16 — Allegation that defendant knowingly transferred counterfeited obligation sufficiently charges knowledge of its character (Cr. Code, § 154 [18 USCA § 26£]).
Allegation of indictment, under Criminal Code, § 154 (18 USCA § 268), that defendant knowingly transferred a counterfeited obligation, held sufficiently to charge that he knew the character of the obligation when he transferred it.
2. Counterfeiting <©=I6 — Indictment charging transfer of counterfeited obligation with intent to defraud United States held sufficient (Cr. Code, § 154 [18 USCA § 268]).
Indictment, under Criminal Code, § 154 (18 USCA § 268), for transferring counterfeited obligation, alleging that defendant knowingly transferred counterfeited obligation with intent to defraud the United States, held sufficient, in that a charge of transfer with such intent included charge that defendant know it was counterfeited.
3. Counterfeiting <©=16 — Defect in form of indictment for transferring counterfeited obligation held not ground for holding indictment insufficient (18 USCA § 556).
' Defect or imperfection in matter of form only of indictment for knowingly transferring a counterfeited obligation of the United States with intent to defraud the United States held not ground for holding indictment insufficient, in,view of Rev. St. § 1025 (18 USCA § 556).
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
Sam Craffi was convicted of transferring a counterfeited $20 gold certificate of the' United States, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Leslie P. Whelan, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
Jacob I. Crossman, of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Before ALSCHULER, PAGE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff in error pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment upon an indictment charging that he “did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and feloniously, and with intent to defraud the United States, transfer and deliver to one J ohn Oglesby, a certain counterfeited obligation of the United States, to wit, a twenty dollar gold certificate of the United States, which said certificate was on the face thereof of the tenor following, to wit: (Here follows a copy of the certificate) with the intent that the said twenty dollar certificate be passed, published or used as true and genuine by the said J ohn Oglesby, contrary,” etc.
The indictment was drawn under section 154 of the Criminal Code, the applicable part of which reads:
“Whoever shall * * * transfer, * * * or deliver any * * * counterfeited * * * obligation * * * of the United States, * * * with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall he fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” 18 USCA § 268.
if is conceded that by pleading guilty plaintiff in error waived all objections which run to the mere form in which the various elements of the crime are stated, or to the fact that the indictment is inartistically drawn, but it is contended that he did not thereby waive the objection that some substantial element of the crime is omitted.
He complains that the indictment is bad because a scienter is not alleged; that is, he insists that there is no averment that he knew the certificate was counterfeited when he transferred and delivered it to Oglesby. In Dunbar v. United States, 156 U. S. 185, 15 S. Ct. 325, 39 L. Ed. 390, the indictment charged that the defendant “did willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly, and with intent to defraud the revenues of the United States, smuggle and clandestinely introduce into the United States” opium upon which the duty had not been paid; and one of the objections to it was that a scienter was not alleged — that it was not averred that he knew it was opium upon which the duty had not been paid. It was held that the objection was not well taken.
The court further said that the language of the indictment excluded the idea of any unintentional and ignorant bringing in of opium upon which the duty had not been paid, and that it could only be satisfied by proof that such bringing in was done intentionally, knowingly, and with intent to defraud the revenues of the United States.
In Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 480, 40 L. Ed. 606, and in Price v. United States, 165 U. S. 311, 17 S. Ct. 366, 41 L. Ed. 727, the Supreme Court held that a charge that defendant “unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly” deposited in the mail obscene matter, was a sufficient averment that he knew the character of the matter which he mailed. In Konda v. United States (C. C. A.) 166 F. 91, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 304, this court had before it the charge that defendant unlawfully and knowingly deposited in the mail§ nonmailable matter. The statute declared:
“Any person who shall knowingly deposit * * * nonmailable matter * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
After quoting the statute the court said:
“That is, in the statute the adverb ‘knowingly’ not merely modifies the verb, but characterizes the whole act that is stated by the predicate and the subject. Now, if the courts and the citizens of the country are bound to know, on reading the statute, that a depositing of nonmailable matter is a* misdemeanor only when the depositor has knowledge of the character of the matter, we believe that the same language in an indictment is sufficient to notify a defendant that the government is charging and has undertaken to prove that he knew the character of the matter when he mailed it.”
So here a charge that plaintiff in error knowingly transferred a counterfeited obligation sufficiently charges that he knew the character of the obligation when he transferred it.
The indictment in the ease at bar. not only alleges that plaintiff in error knowingly transferred the counterfeited obligation, but also that he did it “with intent to defraud the United States” — that is, with intent that a spurious obligation should pass into and impair and debase the circulating medium and eventually be redeemed by the United States as genuine. A charge that he transferred a eouhterfeited obligation with such intent includes the charge that he knew that it was counterfeited. The intent to defraud the United States could not exist without knowledge of the character of the instrument by which the fraud was to be accomplished. If this view be correct, the most that can be said is that the indictment is defective, in that one element of the offense is stated loosely and without technical accuracy. It is a “defect or imperfection in matter of form only,” and is not ground for holding the indictment insufficient. See section 1025, R. S. (18 USCA § 556).
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: 0