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:
WIMBERLY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 9889.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 15, 1941.
Rehearing Denied June 12, 1941.
See, also, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 904.
Ben F. Roberts, Frank J. Looney, and Albert P. Garland, all of Shreveport, La., and Robert H.- Wimberly, of Arcadia, La., for appellant.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and Mc-CORD, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In a pleading entitled “information and order to show cause”, filed by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, appellant was charged with contempt of court. In substance, the information recites that appellant and four other named persons were indicted for using the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud; that the case was fixed for trial on November 18, 1940, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Lousiana, at Shreveport; that on November 16, 1940, appellant, in the presence of the said court and so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, corruptly endeavored to influence and impede one J. Arthur Tooke, a petit juror duly served and summoned for petit jury service in said court, beginning on November 18, 1940, in the discharge of his duties, and did endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in said court. In a summary proceeding, without the intervention of a jury, which was not waived, the District Judge found appellant guilty of contempt and sentenced him to serve a year and a day in a penitentiary. This appeal followed.
In support of the charge it was shown that Edward B. Gillon and John Tooke, a cousin of J. Arthur Tooke, went to the home of J. Arthur Tooke, near Zwolle, La., on November 17, 1940, and John Tooke spent several hours with him, later reporting to Gillon that he was “all right.” Gillon also interviewed J. Arthur Tooke and reached the same conclusion. There was evidence tending to show that appellant put in motion a train of events leading up to this interview but he was not present. It is unnecessary to further review the evidence.
It is certain that if there was an attempt to influence J. Arthur Tooke so as to obstruct the administration of justice it was near Zwolle, some 60 miles from the court, which was not in session that day.
The court derives its jurisdiction and power to punish contempts committed so near the presence of the court as to obstruct the administration of justice from § 268, Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 385. Reviewing the history of the section and the jurisprudence, in Nye and Mayers v. United States et al., 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. -, decided April 14, 1941, the Supreme Court held that the words of the statute “so near thereto” must be considered as having a geographical and not a causal meaning. The gist of the decision is that if .the misconduct does not disrupt quiet and order or actually interrupt the court in the conduct of its business the offender may not be summarily punished for contempt.
Since misconduct charged occurred about 60 miles from the court, it follows that the judgment must be reversed on the authority of the above cited case. However, it is but fair to the District Judge to say that under the decision in Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402, 38 S.Ct. 560, 62 L.Ed. 1186, and other similar decisioiis, all overruled by the Nye case, supra, he had jurisdiction to proceed as he did. Of course, the Nye case was decided after the judgment in the case at bar was entered and the District Judge necessarily was not advised of the impending change in the jurisprudence.
Reversed.

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