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:
BOWERS v. BOWERS.
No. 8686.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued May 12, 1944.
Decided June 26, 1944.
Mr. Ethelbert B. Frey, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Ben Lindas, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal by the defendant wife from a judgment for the plaintiff husband in a suit for divorce. The complaint alleged in substance, and the District Court found, “that on July 22d, 1937, plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to live separate and apart and that in accordance with the said agreement the said parties have lived separate and apart since the said date to, the date of this judgment and that said parties have not lived together as husband and wife since the said date of July 22, 1937.” The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on the ground of separation for five years by mutual consent.
The District of Columbia Code 1940, § 16 — 403, authorizes divorce for “voluntary separation from bed and board for five consecutive years without cohabitation.” The issue turns upon the continuing character of the separation, not its origin; but its origin is evidence of its continuing character. We have held that if both parties voluntarily and continuously acquiesce in separation during five years, the statute authorizes divorce even though the separation was not originally voluntary on both sides. Parks v. Parks, 73 App. D.C. 93, 116 F.2d 556. It is equally true that if either party does not voluntarily and continuously acquiesce in separation during five years, the statute does not authorize divorce even though the separation was originally voluntary on both sides. But one who contends that a voluntary separation ceased to be voluntary should have the burden of proving his contention. The separation in the present case was originally voluntary on both sides. Although the wife after-wards asked her husband to return to her, the court was “not convinced” that her requests were “made in good faith.” It follows that the judgment should be affirmed.
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