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:
WOLPE et al. v. PORETSKY et al.
No. 8952.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Feb. 7, 1946.
Decided April 3, 1946.
Mr. H. Winship Wheatley, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. H. Winship Wheatley, Jr., of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Louis Ottenberg, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edwin Shelton, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Poretsky.
Mr. William C. Sullivan, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellees Arthur W. Machen, Trustee, and Thomas Machen.
Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, District pf Columbia, and Chester H. Gray, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellees, members of the Zoning Commission, District of Columbia. Mr. Richmond B. Keech, formerly Corporation Counsel, of Washington, D. C., entered his appearance for appellees, members of the Zoning Commission when the case was docketed.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and CLARK, Associate Justices.
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court setting aside, as arbitrary and unreasonable, an order of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia. The Commission’s order singled out lot 70/100 for special or “spot” zoning. It prevented appellee Poretsky, the owner of the lot, from building an apartment house. He brought this suit against the Commission and recovered judgment. But the Commission has not appealed. The appellants are owners of various houses and lots in the general vicinity of lot 70/100 who have been permitted to intervene. Wolpe v. Poretsky, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 141, 144 F.2d 505.
Lot 70/100 extends westward from 16th Street N. W. to the proposed 17th Street, along the south side of Shepherd Street, in Washington, D. C. From 1933 until November 7, 1941, when the Commission’s order was issued, the lot was zoned so as to permit the erection of apartment houses. The 16th Street front of the lot had never been zoned against apartment houses. The Commission’s Comprehensive Plan of Zoning had long made and still makes Shepherd Street, from 14th Street on the east to 17th Street on the west, the dividing line between a southern zone where apartment houses may be built and a northern zone which is restricted to single dwellings. Until the order in suit was issued, lot 70/100 was the north-west corner lot of the less restricted zone.
The lot is separated on three sides by a public park, and on all four sides by a park or a street or both, from all present and probable future housing. Appellee’s proposed apartment building will accommodate many more people than the single dwellings which might be built on the lot. They will all derive benefit from the park. No one will suffer the kind and degree of damage which an apartment house may inflict on its immediate neighbors when it has any. The lot is therefore an exceptionally appropriate site for an apartment house. Enforcement of the Commission’s order would greatly impair the value of the lot on which appellees have paid taxes for years and would not, as far as appears, increase the value of appellants’ property. We find nothing, either in the record or on a view of the premises, which tends to support the order. Even apart from the housing shortage, it would have borne no positive relation to the public welfare and would have been arbitrary and unreasonable. In view of the acute housing shortage it bore a negative relation to the public welfare. The District Court was clearly right in setting it aside, and the Commission has properly acquiesced in the correction of its error.
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