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:
Robert N. PILGRIM, Appellant, v. Maurice H. SIGLER, Appellee.
No. 20497.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 14, 1971.
Robert N. Pilgrim, filed brief pro se.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mosher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, Neb., filed brief for appellee.
Before GIBSON, HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Robert N. Pilgrim, a Nebraska state prisoner, brings this in forma pauperis appeal from the federal district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated by the prosecuting attorney’s alleged misconduct in displaying inadmissible exhibits and adducing fingerprint testimony before the jury. The habeas court rejected the claim. We affirm.
Pilgrim was convicted by a jury on May 11, 1967, of the second-degree murder of his wife, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of sixteen years. He appealed directly from his conviction, raising, among other questions, the issue of the prosecuting attorney’s alleged misconduct in displaying inadmissible exhibits before the jury. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Pilgrim, 182 Neb. 594, 156 N.W.2d 171 (1968). Petitioner then applied to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court, Judge Van Pelt presiding, held the petition in abeyance pending petitioner’s presentation of the matter first to the state courts. Petitioner then brought such an action under the Nebraska Post-Conviction Remedy Law, NEB.REV.STAT. §§ 29-3001-3004 (Supp.1969), in a Nebraska lower court, where it was dismissed. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. State v. Pilgrim, 184 Neb. 457, 168 N.W.2d 368 (1969).
Subsequently, on June 12, 1969, petitioner filed in federal district court a request for reconsideration of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. An evidentiary hearing was held, and on July 23, 1970, Judge Van Pelt denied the petition, explaining his ruling in an accompanying memorandum. Petitioner then filed a motion for a rehearing, which Judge Van Pelt denied on August 5, 1970, in a supplemental memorandum.
On this appeal, Pilgrim particularly notes that the prosecutor displayed before the jury several exhibits, some likely to incite passion or prejudice, which were not admitted into evidence. He charges that the jury’s request during its deliberations that two of such exhibits be brought to the jury room establishes the prejudicial nature of this misconduct. Appellant further contends that the prosecuting attorney, by presenting testimony of the search for fingerprints, knowingly created a false impression that Pilgrim’s fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime.
Judge Van Pelt analyzed petitioner’s contentions in depth and concluded that the prosecution committed no error amounting to a denial of due process. The habeas court also determined the trial errors to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt within the rules of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).
We agree with this analysis and affirm on the basis of Judge Van Pelt’s memorandum opinions.
. The July 23, 1970, memorandum and the August 5, 1970, supplemental memorandum are unpublished.

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: 1