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:
Namon TANNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6817.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1961.
No appearance for appellant.
J. E. Gallegos, Asst. U. S. Atty., Santa. Fe, N. M. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., and Ruth C. Streeter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for U. S.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Appellant was convicted on two counts alleging violations of the Internal Revenue Laws relating to the conduct of a retail liquor business. Appellant collaterally attacks the judgment and sentence on the grounds that the complaint filed did not accurately state the applicable title of the United States Code; that his arrest and the seizure of certain contraband liquor was illegal; that the evidence at trial was insufficient; and that the sentence is ambiguous.
The record discloses that subsequent to the filing of the allegedly improper complaint appellant was indicted by a Federal grand jury. The validity of the indictment, under which appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced, is not questioned and the form of the complaint, if defective, did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.
The trial court sentenced appellant to two years on Count I and two years on Count II, “the said sentences to run consecutively.” The failure of the trial court to specifically designate which of the two-year terms was to be served first is said by appellant to require their concurrent service. In our view the sentence is clear and unambiguous and requires the appellant to serve "two years on Count I and, thereafter, two years on Count II. See: United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309.
The remaining allegations, concerning the validity of the arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence, are cognizable only upon direct appeal and do not state grounds upon which collateral relief may be granted. Roddy v. United States, 10 Cir., 296 F.2d 9; Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 241 F.2d 693.
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