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. Joanne Uline GIDDEN, Appellant.
No. 79-5122.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 2, 1982.
Decided May 17, 1982.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 4, 1982.
See 103 S.Ct. 167.
Joseph A. Miklasz, Glen Bumie, Md. (M. R. Rohrback, Glen Bumie, Md., on brief), for appellant.
Catherine C. Blake, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (J. Frederick Motz, U. S. Atty., Jane W. Moscowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joanne Uline Gidden was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 81 for setting fire to her family’s living quarters at the Annapolis Naval Station. She appeals and we affirm.
One of Gidden’s arguments merits brief attention because of its novelty. She contends that the government destroyed the evidence of the fire by repairing the apartment and, as a consequence, her expert witness was unable to formulate an opinion about the source of the fire. Although the government agents took photographs of the scene and saved bags of evidence which they though would be relevant, Gidden’s expert opined that those pieces of evidence were insufficient to support any conclusions.
We simply cannot agree that the government should have left the burned apartment intact until an indictment issued and the defendant’s expert had an opportunity to see it. Health and safety considerations as well as the practical necessity of utilizing the space available for military housing required that the Giddens’ living quarters be restored to normal without undue delay. Moreover, the categorical imperative is disturbing: if every crime scene were preserved pending an indictment, a substantial part of our country would be in a state of suspended animation.
The other issues raised on appeal are patently without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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