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:
Harold Wayne DAVIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13706.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
June 17, 1959.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 12, 1959.
See 80 S.Ct. 113.
Stanley Goodman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
J. Leonard Walker, and Robert D. Simmons, Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, McAL-LISTER, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed his motion, under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate the sentence imposed on him by the District Court on the ground that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense of kidnaping for which he was tried, and that he was also insane at the time of his trial. Appellant had never been adjudicated insane prior to the imposition of the sentence. The issue of insanity was raised for the first time upon the motion to vacate, in the District Court. See Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835. The District Court held that the procedure that should be followed in this case was that provided in Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245. The court stated that appellant should apply to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a determination by the board of examiners of the issue of his mental competency at the time of his trial; that if there were probable cause to believe that appellant was mentally incompetent, the board of examiners would so report, and the court would hold a hearing; and that if the appellant was found to be mentally incompetent, the judgment of conviction would be vacated and a new trial granted.
The court, therefore, denied appellant's motion filed under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, without prejudice to appellant to renew his motion thereunder, if the procedure under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245, failed to provide an adequate remedy for ascertaining the mental condition of appellant at the time of his trial. After denial of the motion, appellant was examined by the Psychiatric Board at the hospital of the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, which reported that it was of the opinion that while appellant had a sociapathic personality, there was no evidence of psychosis, and that, in the opinion of the Board, he was mentally competent at the time of his trial and sentence.
Under the circumstances of this case, the order of the District Court is affirmed, without prejudice, however, to the right of appellant to renew his motion, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. Meadows, D.C., 140 F.Supp. 184, affirmed 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312; Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 858, 78 S.Ct. 88, 2 L.Ed.2d 65. See also Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 48.
. “Whenever the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall certify that a person convicted of an offense against the United States has been examined by the board of examiners referred to in Title 18, United States Code, section 4241, and that there is probable cause to believe that such person was mentally incompetent at the time of Ms trial, provided the issue of mental competency was not raised and determined before or during said trial, the Attorney General .shall transmit the report of the board of examiners and the certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to the clerk of the district court wherein the conviction was had. Whereupon the court shall hold a hearing to determine the mental competency of the accused in accordance with the provisions of section 4244 above, and with all the powers therein granted. In such hearing the certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall be pri-ma facie evidence of the facts' and conclusions certified therein. If the court shall find that the accused was mentally incompetent at the time o'f his trial, the court shall vacate the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial.”

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