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, Appellee, v. Albert Earl FARMER, Appellant.
No. 8800.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 11, 1963.
Decided June 13, 1963.
Joseph M. Wright, Shelby, N. C., for appellant.
William Medford, U. S. Atty. (James O. Israel, Jr., and Robert J. Robinson, Asst. U. S. Attys., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Albert Earl Farmer appeals from his conviction under several counts of an indictment for using the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. The scheme consisted of solicitations made by mail contemporaneously to several persons, offering to sell them a collection of old guns. After the persons addressed sent the defendant the sums requested no guns were shipped to any of them. It was shown that the defendant in fact owned no antique guns as represented.
The appeal is based chiefly on alleged errors of the trial court in admitting in evidence certain letters allegedly written by the defendant and his wife to the victims of the fraud. Overlooking the fact that at trial no objection was raised by the defendant as to some of these items, we still find no error. The letters now complained of were in response to letters written to the defendant by the victims and tend to explain the circumstances of the offenses charged. Moreover, even if some of the letters had been technically objectionable, no prejudice could have resulted from their admission, for they merely parallel statements of the defendant himself, made in other unobjectionable letters, acknowledging that he obtained substantial sums of money from the victims and failed to return the money or to ship the guns ostensibly sold to them.
The other contentions of .the appellant are so patently frivolous as to require no discussion.
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