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:
Jane Greer KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREER STEEL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14829.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1962.
William H. Arkin, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Richard F. Stevens, Cleveland, Ohio, (J. Richard Hamilton, Cleveland, Ohio, and Albert B. Arbaugh, Canton, Ohio, on the brief; Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, Canton, Ohio, of counsel), for appellee.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, McAL-LISTER, Circuit Judge, and DARR, Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff-appellant, Jane Greer Kelly, brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to recover from the defendant-appellee, Greer Steel Company, dividends on stock of said company which she claims to own. The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she owns shares substantially in excess of twenty-eight, but she does not know the exact number or the aggregate amount of unpaid dividends. She admits the receipt of dividends on twenty-eight shares.
The trial judge granted summary judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.
The records of the company show that Agnes Jane Reeves Greer, mother of the plaintiff, endorsed stock certificates 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25, “my daughter Jane Greer Ráese.” Certificates numbered 20 and 21 were endorsed “my daughter Jane Greer.” Beneath each of these endorsements is a typewritten statement as follows: “The above transfer having been supplied in error, request is hereby made for the reissuance of the indicated shares in my name as registered owner. December 5, 1952.” The endorsements were signed “Agnes J. Reeves Greer.” These certificates represented 2480 shares and they were cancelled December 5, 1952. New certificates were issued to Mrs. Greer for 2355 shares. The balance of 125 shares were issued to plaintiff, her children and former husband.
Certificates 19 to 25, from the time the endorsement was placed on them, until they were sent in to the company for reissue, were continuously in the possession of Mrs. Greer. At the time she placed the endorsement on the certificates, she thought she might precede her husband in death and she was apprehensive that he would leave all of his property to an educational institution. She told no one of the endorsement and sealed them in an envelope and placed them in her safety deposit box with a statement that in the event of her death they were to be delivered to her daughter.
After her daughter’s first marriage she added the name Ráese to all of the certificates, except 20 and 21. It was an oversight that these were missed. She then resealed them in an envelope and again placed them in the safety deposit box with the same instructions.
There was never any delivery of these certificates, either actual or constructive, to the plaintiff by her mother, nor was there any intention, on the part of the mother, to ever have them delivered to the plaintiff during the mother’s lifetime. The undisputed evidence before the Court disclosed that the plaintiff had no support for a claim of ownership, either legal or equitable, to the certificates in question.
We conclude that the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and stock record of the company, all before the Court at the time the motion for summary judgment was granted, conclusively show that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment.
The judgment of the District Court is 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