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. Travis Stanley HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 30945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 10, 1971.
W. E. Gore, Jr., L. Breland Hilburn, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.
Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., E. Donald Strange, Daniel E. Lynn, Asst. U. S. Attys., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GODBOLD, SIMPSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from conviction for possession of counterfeit bills in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 472, appellant raises numerous issues, all of which we have considered.
The court did not err in refusing defendant’s requested charge on entrapment. Pierce v. United States, 414 F.2d 163 (5th Cir.1969).
Appellant was not given a preliminary hearing, although there is evidence that he requested one, but subsequently he was indicted by the grand jury. This was not reversible error. United States v. Coley and Scogin, 441 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir., 1971).
Probable cause for appellant’s arrest without a warrant was more than sufficient, so there was no error in denying the motion to suppress. In fact this contention approaches being frivolous.
Claims of error based on denial of a mistrial on the ground that one juror inadvertently saw appellant brought into the courtroom in handcuffs and before the cuffs were removed, denial of motion for judgment of acquittal, and refusal to require the prosecutor to furnish to appellant a statement by a government witness, all are so lacking in merit as to require no discussion.
The trial judge instructed the jury at unusual length, and with great care and precision, on reasonable doubt. In one sentence of a reasonable doubt charge several pages long the court used language which only a few days before the Supreme Court of Mississippi had condemned in Pryor v. Mississippi, 239 So.2d 911 (1970). Without regard to whether the district judge would be bound by Mississippi precedent, we have considered the charge as a whole and find that the language employed did not constitute reversible error.
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