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:
Donald Lee FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. B. SULLIVAN, Commissioner, Board of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 77-1694
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1977.
Donald Lee Fox, pro se.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Jerry L. Weidler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Robert G. Kendall, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Mobile, Ala., for Blackburn.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
An Alabama prison guard opened a cell door to allow the occupant to place a radio outside for the enjoyment of other prisoners. The occupant thereupon stabbed Donald Lee Fox, a fellow convict, working outside the cell. Fox went to the hospital and was reported dead. Some of his personal property was distributed to other inmates. Fox lived, however, and brought this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 suit against the Alabama prison authorities to recover for his personal injuries and lost property. A prior panel of this Court held he was entitled to trial on the merits of his allegation that official negligence was responsible for the harm he suffered. Fox v. Sullivan, 539 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1976).
On remand, the district court found the officers involved were not negligent. The court found the jail’s procedures for inmate protection were reasonable, and that the officer opening the door had no basis for anticipating the attack. The court said that although some of Fox’ books arid magazines were given to a fellow inmate, some were later returned. The officers acted under the belief Fox was dead. Testimony also established that the officers thought some of the disputed property did not belong to Fox. His other personal effects were properly preserved. The failure to-return a small portion was not the result of intent or negligence.
The only question for our review is whether the district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We conclude they are not. The district court properly applied the law under which the case was previously remanded to it.
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: 1