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:
JOHNSON et al. v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.
No. 6213.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 3, 1951.
Decided April 10, 1951.
Henry E. Howell, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Jett, Sykes & Howell, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants.
Hewitt Biaett, Richmond, Va. (Leigh D. Williams, Norfolk, Va., and Horace L. Walker, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying an injunction to restrain the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company from abandoning its ferry boat passenger service between Newport News- and Norfolk and Portsmouth in the State of Virginia. The abandonment of this service had been authorized by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia; but injunction was sought because the abandonment had not been authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The plaintiffs in the court below, appellants here, were two individuals, one an engineer on one of the ferry boats which had been operated in the service, the other a dentist in the City of Norfolk. Neither alleged or proved any such interest in the continuance of the ferry service as would give them standing in court to maintain a suit of this character. L. Singer & Sons v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 311 U.S. 295, 61 S.Ct. 254, 259, 85 L.Ed. 198. As was well said by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in the case cited: “WHo then is a ‘party in interest’? As a part of the very system through which the national policy is to be achieved, a railroad has been deemed by this Court a ‘party in interest’ to effectuate the railroad policy introduced by the licensing system of the Transportation Act. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 277, 46 S.Ct. 263, 266 70 L.Ed. 578; Western Pacific R. Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 284 U.S. 47, 52 S.Ct. 56, 76 L.Ed. 160. And one who in a proceeding initiated before the Interstate Commerce Commission has been treated by it as a party to the litigation, cf. Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases, 100 I.C.C. 421; Id., 142 I.C.C. 489; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 283 U.S. 380, 393, 394, 51 S.Ct. 553, 556, 557, 75 L.Ed. 1128, may perhaps .be deemed a ‘party in interest’ in the further pursuit of claims before a court after adverse action by the Commission. Compare Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Oregon-Washington R. Co., 288 U.S. 14, 53 S.Ct. 266, 77 L.Ed. 588, and Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 60 S.Ct. 693, 84 L.Ed. 869, [1037]. But to allow any private interest to thresh out the complicated questions that arise out of § 1 (18-22) — as, for instance, whether a proposed construction is an ‘extension’ or a ‘spur’, compare Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 46 S.Ct. 263, 70 L.Ed. 578 — is to invite dislocation of the scheme which Congress has devised for the expert conduct of the litigation of such issues. It also would put upon the district courts the task of drawing fine lines in determining when a private claim is so special that it may be set apart from the general public interest and give the claimant power to litigate a public controversy. These inquiries are so harassing and unprofitable as to be avoided, unless Congress has explicitly cast the duty upon the courts. Against any such implication, in the absence of rather plain language, the whole course of federal railroad legislation and the relation of the Interstate Commerce Commission to it admonishes. The interests of merely private concerns are amply protected even though they must be channelled through the Attorney General or the Interstate Commerce Commission or a state commission.”
The judgment and order of the District Court will be vacated and the cause will be remanded with direction that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judgment vacated and cause remanded with direction to dismiss.

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: 3