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:
HYCHE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10430.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 12, 1943.
Erie Pettus and Albert A. Rosenthal, both of Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Jim C. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The jury could disbelieve the appellant’s version of what happened. The evidence otherwise is sufficient to show his guilt.
Having testified in his own behalf, there was no error in permitting impeaching evidence of his general bad character, and his bad character for truth and veracity. 70 C.J., Witnesses, § 1040; Baugh v. State, 215 Ala. 619, 112 So. 157; Johnson v. State, 203 Ala. 30, 81 So. 820; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 254 F. 52; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 46 F.2d 731; Campbell v. United States, 5 Cir., 47 F.2d 70.
Appellant then introduced testimony that his general character was good. In charging, the judge told the jury all this testimony was admissible. As to that showing good character he added: “That testimony was permissible because it is presumed that a man with a good general reputation is not as likely to commit a crime or violate the law as a person who has not a good general reputation; but I charge you, gentlemen, that men who have good reputations, general reputations, do violate the law.” Exception was taken “to that portion of your honor’s charge in which you said it is presumed a man with a good general reputation would not be as apt to commit a crime”. No ground of objection was stated. There is no error prejudicial to appellant in the words excepted to. What followed was a doubtful propriety, but was not excepted to. No error is established.
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: 0