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:
Charles CATALANO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 133, Docket 27141.
Unitéd States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 1961.
Decided Jan. 17, 1962.
Charles Catalano, appellant, pro se. Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Donald N. Ruby, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, SMITH and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges,
MARSHALL, Circuit Judge.
Charles Catalano, presently serving a twenty-five year sentence for armed bank robbery at Alcatraz, appeals from the denial, without a hearing, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the judgment of conviction there rendered.
Reading Catalano’s papers with the liberality to be accorded pleadings of an incarcerated litigant not represented by counsel see Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 350, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392 (1941), we conclude that petitioner’s detailed allegations, replete with dates and with the names both of alleged participants and of witnesses, sufficiently pose the contention that petitioner was rendered incompetent throughout the trial by the daily administration of medicines at the place where he was then confined.
Petitioner’s competency during the trial may be challenged by motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956). *No claim of such incompetency was litigated at the trial or presented by prior motion under § 2255. Nothing in the present motion or in the files and records of the case conclusively controverts his assertions. The affidavit in opposition is insufficient to show that Catalano’s assertions are frivolous. Consequently, improbable or unbelievable as these assertions may be, see Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 287, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830 (1941), there must be a hearing at which Catalano is present and at which he may both call and examine witnesses, United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952); United States v. Paglia, 190 F.2d 445 (2 Cir. 1951); Green v. United States, 158 F.Supp. 804 (D.Mass. 1958), aff’d 256 F.2d 483 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 358 U.S. 854, 79 S.Ct. 83, 3 L.Ed.2d 87.
We recognize that the various collateral procedures designated to remedy fundamental injustice have been much abused; indeed it was to alleviate such abuse that § 2255 was enacted, see United States v. Hayman, supra, pages 210-.219. But abuse of judicial process must rather be risked than denial of fundamental rights, see United States v. Tribote, 297 F.2d 598 (2 Cir., decided November 22, 1961). Moreover in suitable instances the perjury statute may be invoked.
Reversed and remanded for hearing.
. Although 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245 provides a procedure by which, upon certification by The Director of The Bureau of Prisons, a prisoner’s competency during the trial may be investigated after his conviction, we do not pause to consider the effect of this section on motions under 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255 grounded on incompetency during the trial resulting from mental disease or defect, see 28 U.Chi.D.Rev. 154 (1960). Even if 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245 be regarded as the exclusive means for pressing such a claim, and we do not at all imply that we would so hold, it was plainly not devised for inquiry into a temporary incapacity without residual effect, Johnston v. United States, 292 F.2d 51 (10th Cir. 1961).

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