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:
KIRBY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 13432.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 28, 1947.
Nelson Abraham, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., and David A. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, .and JOHN SEN, Circuit Judges.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was indicted for transporting a woman by automobile from Kansas City, Missouri, to Clay Center, Kansas, in January, 1946, with intent to induce her to have illicit sexual relations with him. See Sections 398 and 400 of Title 18, U.S. C.A. He entered a plea of not guilty, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for four years. By this appeal he •challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the propriety of remarks, made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument to the jury.
The facts out of which this case arose are largely undisputed. The appellant was a young man without money or employment, who had been married but believed himself to be divorced. On January 13, 1946, in Kansas City, Missouri, he became acquainted with a fifteen year old girl, who was living with her parents. By a promise of marriage, he induced her to go with him that night, by automobile, to Clay Center, Kansas. He there registered her as his wife at a hotel and had illicit relations with her. After staying with her two nights at Clay Center, he sold his automobile to obtain funds, and took her to Denver, Colorado. On January 18, 1946, he told her he would not marry her and that she could stay with him or go home. She went home.
The appellant’s defense was that when he left Kansas City with the girl he intended to marry her and did not change his mind until he «reached Denver. The government’s evidence unquestionably tended to prove that he never intended to marry the girl; that the promise of marriage was made only after she had rejected improper proposals made by him; that he had no money; that he stole gasoline in order to make the trip to Clay Center; that he made no move to marry the girl after selling his automobile; and that immediately after their separation in Denver, he took another' woman to his room for immoral purposes. His conduct, acts and admissions, as disclosed by the evidence, were inconsistent with his assertion that he transported the girl with intent to marry her. The jury was justified in believing that his intentions, when he left Kansas City, were to treat the girl exactly as he did treat her.
The appellant complains of the admission of evidence that he stole gasoline for the trip, and that after ridding himself of the girl in Denver he took another woman to his room. This evidence bore upon the question of his intent. A man honestly contemplating marriage does not ordinarily elope when penniless, steal gasoline for his wedding trip, have relations with his prospective wife before marriage, nor substitute an immoral woman for her upon breaking the engagement. Compare Ellis v. United States, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 612, 614.
There is no merit in the appellant’s contention that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct in his closing argument to the jury, and the remarks of which the appellant now complains were not obj ected to at the trial.
It is probably true, as the government asserts, that the appellant failed to take his appeal in time. Under the circumstances of this case, we have resolved any possible doubts as to our jurisdiction in favor of the appellant. Óur conclusion is that he had a fair trial and that the sentence imposed is a lawful sentence.
■ The judgment appealed from 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