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:
LANE ex rel. CRONIN v. TILLINGHAST, Commissioner of Immigration.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Feb. 17, 1930.
No. 2426.
John-T. Lane, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
John W. Schenck, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (Frederick H. Tarr, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, ANDERSON, and' "WILSON, Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal from a decision of the District Court denying habeas corpus involves the right of the immigration authorities to deport Anna Cronin, an alien, who was duly admitted on September 2,1923, on the ground that she had “within five years after entry * * * [been] * * * sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien to the United States.” Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 889, 8 USCA § 155. The record shows that on October 21, 1926, she pleaded guilty to a complaint in the district court of Lawrence, Mass., charging her with being “a lewd, wanton and lascivious person in speech and behaviour, frequenting houses of ill fame and other places of evil repute, the company of lewd persons, and has otherwise conducted herself in a lewd, wanton and lascivious manner, against the peace of said Commonwealth, and contrary to the form of the Statute in such ease made and provided;” that she was placed on probation for six months; that she violated the terms of her probation; that on June 29, 1927, after hearing, she was committed to the Massachusetts Reformatory for Women at Framingham for an indeterminate period, and actually remained there for one year, when she was apparently paroled. On her arrest for deportation, she was gpven a fair hearing, with counsel present. On credible evidence, the finding was made that she had told various police officers that she had had promiscuous sexual intercourse with men at the Plaza Hotel in Lawrence, for money, and divided the proceeds with one Dyer, who sent the men to her. She admitted telling this to the officers; but claimed she then lied. If the evidence was legally admissible to show the nature of her alleged lewdness, of course all questions of credibility were for the immigration officials.
We need not decide whether the evidence of the nature of this alien’s lewdness was competent; United States v. Uhl (C. C. A.) 210 F. 861, 863; Tillinghast v. Edmead (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 81; Ex parte Edmead (D. C.) 27 F.(2d) 438; for we are of opinion that under the statute, G. L. Mass. c. 272, § 53, lewdness connotes moral turpitude.
In Commonwealth v. Wardell, 128 Mass. 52, 54, 35 Am. Rep. 357, the court said: “The word ‘lewdness’ at common law means open and public indecency; but as used and qualified in the statute it has a broader sense. It was held to mean, as used in other criminal statutes (Gen. Sts. e. 165, § 13; e.-87, § 6), ‘the irregular indulgence of lust, whether publie or private.’ ”
Bouvier says: “Lewdness. — That form of immorality which has relation to sexual impurity.” Bouv. Law Dict., vol. 2, p. 1938.
Compare Swearingen v. United States, 161 U. S. 446, 451, 16 S. Ct. 562, 40 L. Ed. 765.
The deeree 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