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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby R. CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17877.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 11, 1968.
H. Wayne Grant, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellant; Williams, Grant & Clements, Chattanooga, Tenn., of counsel.
John H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee; Robert A. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., on brief.
Before O’SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS, and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
COMBS, Circuit Judge.
The defendant-appellant, Bobby R. Carpenter, worked for the operators of a numbers game in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He was placed under surveillance by federal officers, and on three occasions in April and two occasions in July, 1966, was observed as he travelled by automobile from Rossville, Georgia, to the headquarters of the numbers racket in Chattanooga. The Tennessee-Georgia state line separates the city of Chattanooga from the town of Rossville. Carpenter was indicted and convicted for violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which prohibits travel in interstate commerce with the intent to promote or engage in illegal gambling activities.
It is admitted that Carpenter crossed the state line as charged in the indictment, and it is not denied that he was engaged in the operation of a numbers racket or lottery prohibited by the laws of Tennessee. Carpenter offered proof, which was not denied, that his permanent residence was at his mother’s home in Chattanooga and that his trips to Georgia had no connection with his activities in the gambling operation. Carpenter and his wife were separated and under the order of custody he had the right to visit his minor son. His married sister lived in Rossville and at irregular intervals the child was brought to her home for short visits. On these occasions Carpenter stayed overnight there in order to be with his son. On the dates referred to in the indictment he was going from his sister’s home in Georgia to his place of employment in Chattanooga. It is contended by Carpenter that the trips from Georgia back to Tennessee did not violate the Travel Act. There being no dispute about the facts, the case turns on whether he was entitled to a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law.
Carpenter relies on the line of cases of which Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.Ed. 1331 (1944), is typical. Mortensen and his wife operated a house of prostitution in Grand Island, Nebraska. They were making plans to visit Mrs. Mortensen’s parents in Salt Lake City, Utah. Two of the prostitutes requested that they be permitted to go along as a vacation to them. The Mortensens agreed and the two girls accompanied them to Salt Lake City and returned with them to Nebraska. No prostitution was practiced on the trip but it was intended that the girls would resume their profession upon their return to Nebraska. The Mortensens were indicted and convicted for violation of the Mann Act. In reversing the judgment, the Supreme Court said:
“An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive for such interstate movement. And the transportation must be designed to bring about such result.”
To the same general effect is Hansen v. Haff, 291 U.S. 559, 54 S.Ct. 494, 78 L.Ed. 968 (1934), and United States v. Hawthorne, 356 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 908, 86 S.Ct. 1344, 16 L.Ed.2d 360 (1966).
We do not consider those cases as controlling here. The reasoning in those cases is that the interstate travel was not directly connected with the illegal activity; or stated differently, the promotion of the illegal activity was not the dominant motive for the travel. In this case, Carpenter went directly from his sister’s home in Georgia, where he was temporarily residing, to the gambling house in Tennessee. The officers testified that occasionally he took a circuitous route, apparently in an effort to avoid surveillance. On one occasion, at a parking lot he picked up a woman who also worked in the gambling operation and took her to the gambling house.
So far as is shown by the record, Carpenter’s only purpose in going from his sister’s home in Georgia to his place of employment in Tennessee was to assist in the gambling operation. Certainly, the jury had the right to reach this conclusion. It may be conceded that, in going from Tennessee into Georgia to visit his son, his motives were commendable and that he violated no law; but he was not tried for going into Georgia. He was tried for making the trips from his sister’s home in Georgia to the gambling house in Tennessee. The statute prohibits interstate travel with intent to “promote, manage, establish, carry on” an unlawful activity, including illegal gambling. We are of the opinion that the facts of this case meet the requirements of the statute. Compare United States v. Compton, 355 F.2d 872 (1966), where this Court upheld a conviction in somewhat similar circumstances.
The judgment 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