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:
William D. LOVELL, Appellant, v. Walter N. TOBRINER et al., Individual Members of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Appellees.
No. 16777.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 1, 1962.
Decided Nov. 29, 1962.
Mr. Bernard Margolius, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Carleton U. Edwards, II, and Ralph H. Deckelbaum, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel for District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp.
Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.
Before Edgerton, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a District of Columbia fireman, was retired from service by the Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board on the ground he was disabled from continuing service due to disability resulting from an injury incurred other than in the course of duty. D.C.Code § 4-526 (1961). The order of the Retirement Board was affirmed by the District of Columbia Commissioners. Appellant contends that he was entitled to be retired under D.C.Code § 4-527 (1961) because his disability resulted from injuries incurred in the performance of duty. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.
Appellant contended before the Board and the Commissioners that he first injured his back while on duty at a fire on March 3, 1948, and that subsequent aggravation of that service-connected injury led to his retirement disability. The memorandum opinion of the District Judge states that the reason the Board had not retired appellant under D.C.Code § 4-527 (1961), was that “the Board was not satisfied with the proof that the 1948 injury had actually been incurred, especially as there was no record of it in the personnel files of the Fire Department.” (Emphasis added.) Our examination of the record upon which the Retirement Board acted reveals that there was such a personnel record, although so cryptic in form as to have little meaning until explained, as appellant’s counsel do in their brief in this court. Appellant’s personnel file contained the following notation: “3-2-48 Lumbo-sacral strain, Box 9322.” Both parties agree that the “Box 9322” entry refers to the 1948 fire at which appellant then claimed he injured his back carrying the 275-300 pound body of a fire victim.
Since it is apparent from the record that what may well be a critical, if not controlling, item of evidence before the Retirement Board was not taken into consideration by that Board in reaching its decision, we remand to the District Court so that the ease may in turn be sent back to the District of Columbia Commissioners for reconsideration in light of all the evidence. New legislation recently enacted should also be considered if found applicable.
Remanded with instructions.
. A fireman retired as the jesult of service-connected disability receives a larger retirement annuity than if he is retired as the result of an injury incurred other than in the course of duty,
. Pub.L. No. 87-857, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1902).

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: 5