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:
James C. AGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard DUGGER, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Robert L. Butterworth, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 87-3448.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 25, 1987.
Mark E. Olive, Asst. Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.
Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Before FAY, VANCE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The facts of this death penalty case are amply set forth in the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion on defendant Agan’s direct appeal. Agan v. State, 445 So.2d 326 (Fla.1983). The procedural history has been adequately set out in the district court opinion denying Agan habeas relief, a stay of execution, and a certificate of probable cause. Agan v. Dugger, slip op. (M.D.Fla. June 24, 1987).
Of the numerous issues raised by Agan in his appeal to this court, we need only address Agan’s claim that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel in reaching our conclusion that a certificate of probable cause must issue in this case. We note that no court, state or federal, has afforded Agan an evidentiary hearing on this matter.
Agan’s proffer of evidence suggests that his trial attorney spent a total of only 15 hours working on the case. Those 15 hours include time the attorney spent for investigation, at the guilty plea hearing, and at the sentencing hearing. Agan claims that his attorney conducted little or no investigation either for the guilt or sentencing phase of his case. The proffer further suggests that any adequate investigation would have disclosed substantial exculpatory evidence, including the following: that Agan had a significant history of mental problems, had been diagnosed at one or more times as psychotic and as a paranoid schizophrenic, had been taking medicine for psychosis at times crucial to the facts of this case, and, in the recent opinion of one Dr. Fox, was incompetent to stand trial at the time of the plea and sentencing hearing; that one of the prison officials who investigated the murder had a question as to whether Agan was the killer; that one or more inmates had pointed to someone other than Agan as the killer; and that one or more inmates had seen this other person leaving the area of the murder at about the crucial time. Furthermore, the proffer offers some evidence to suggest the possibility that Agan, for some reason — perhaps attributable to his mental problems — confessed, although innocent, and possibly was induced in this regard and coached by other inmates, possibly with the cooperation of prison officials.
Both the state courts and the district court discounted the foregoing proffer, holding that Agan’s plea of guilty and detailed confessions made any such evidence irrelevant. That perspective overlooks the fact that the proffered evidence of mental problems is highly relevant to Agan’s competence to stand trial and to the validity of the guilty plea itself. Moreover, all of the foregoing evidence would have been highly relevant at sentencing, even if the guilty plea itself were valid.
We conclude that Agan has made a “ ‘substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right’ ” and that the issue is ‘ “debatable among jurists of reason.’ ” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 and n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394 and n. 4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983) (citations omitted). Thus, we hold that a certificate of probable cause must issue. The execution is stayed until further order of this court. “[A] court of appeals, where necessary to prevent the case from becoming moot by the petitioner’s execution, should grant a stay of execution pending disposition of an appeal when a condemned prisoner obtains a certificate of probable cause on his initial habeas appeal.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893-94, 103 S.Ct. at 3395. The Clerk is directed to issue immediately the briefing schedule.
Agan’s motion for a certificate of probable cause is GRANTED.
Agan’s motion for a stay of execution is GRANTED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER.

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