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. Edgar L. SHIELDS, Appellant.
No. 80-1944.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 1981.
Decided Feb. 26, 1981.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 7, 1981.
Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen & Chubb by John C. Shapleigh, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant Edgar L. Shields.
Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., Larry D. Hale, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and STEPHENSON and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Edgar L. Shields appeals his conviction on two counts, for (1) wilfull failure to timely file a 1977 federal income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, and (2) for wilfully furnishing his employer with false and fraudulent federal income tax withholding information in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7205. We affirm.
Shields, an aerospace engineer earned income of $16,416.75 during 1976 which resulted in a federal income tax liability of $2,204. During 1977 he earned $18,164.71 in income, including $1,900 during January and February, resulting in a $2,933 tax liability. He filed no federal income tax return for 1977 and on May 11, 1977, he filed Form W-4E, Exemption from Federal Income Tax Withholding Certificate, certifying, under penalty of perjury, that he incurred no federal tax liability in 1976 and anticipated none in 1977. Previously, defendant filed amended federal income tax returns for the years 1968-75, inclusive, showing no income for those years. In a letter attached to his 1975 return, Shields stated that after long study he has learned that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code is the term “dollars” or the symbol “$” defined, the only definition in any statute is in the Coinage Act of 1792 which defines dollars in terms of “lawful money,” such as 412V2 grams of silver, paper money since 1968 is not payable on demand in “lawful money,” and “new coins” are no longer made of “lawful money.” Shields concluded that he had received no “dollars” as wages and, thus, had earned no “dollars” in income. The Internal Revenue Service mailed two letters to Shields, both dated September 17, 1976, in response to his 1973 and 1974 amended returns informing him that his conclusion was not acceptable. Again, in a letter dated June 15, 1978, the IRS informed Shields that his position was erroneous.
Congress has declared federal reserve notes to be legal tender, 31 U.S.C. § 392, and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars, United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111, 1112 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8th Cir. 1973). Shields argues, however, that he acted on a good faith belief as to the definition of “dollars” and that the government failed to prove that he “wilfully” violated Sections 7203 and 7205. Wilfullness under the IRC only requires proof of an intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12-13, 97 S.Ct. 22, 23-24, 50 L.Ed.2d 12 (1976); United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1980). Evidence of Shields’ prior filing and tax paying history, and IRS attempts to explain the legal requirements to him are sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that Shields was aware of his legal obligations imposed by the tax laws and intentionally chose not to comply with them. See United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617, 618 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1978).
Shields also challenges the exclusion of evidence by the district court. Upon review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion and no merit to this claim. We also find the other issues presented to this court to be frivolous.
Judgment 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: 5