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:
Russell L. HAYES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20573.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 1964.
Russell L. Hayes, pro se.
Carl Walker, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and SIMPSON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Subsequent to our decision of November 1, 1963, the United States filed a Suggestion of Mootness which informs this Court that Russell L. Hayes, Appellant, has been released from confinement at the Federal Correctional Institution by reason of the completion of his sentence. The Suggestion sets forth these facts:
“The Appellant Hayes had previously been released by reason of accumulated credits under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4161-64. He was thereafter recommitted as a violator of the conditions of his release. At time of recommittal he had remaining to serve 584 days. He thereafter served 425 days and accumulated further credits during his second incarceration of 153 days. He was allowed in addition 6 days exemplary good time and therefore released within 180 days of the expiration of his full sentence as originally adjudged. For this reason, he was released without parole supervision and without any other form of restraint, supervision, or control.”
We think it inappropriate for us initially to determine either the factual accuracy of the claim of mootness or its legal significance in a proceeding seeking the particular relief requested by this § 2255 petition. But on the remand heretofore ordered, the District Court is free to, and should, determine the claim and take whatever action might be legally appropriate. This course may be especially advisable since, if factually and legally supported, an ultimate dismissal of this cause for mootness may make it unnecessary to determine the substantive issues raised in this proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
Enter.

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