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:
James W. VOYLES, Appellant, v. Patricia HARRIS, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Appellee.
No. 80-1320.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 1980.
Decided Dec. 19, 1980.
Robert J. Blackwell, Flat River, Mo., for appellant.
D. Samuel Borin, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept, of Health and Human Services, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant James W. Voyles challenges the Department of Health, Education and Welfare Secretary’s order denying him Social Security disability benefits. The district court affirmed the administrative decision; we reverse.
The appellant was initially injured in 1970 when a car body fell on him while he was working for General Motors Corporation as an assembly line worker. The accident seriously injured his lower back. A few months later, he underwent a transabdominal spinal fusion which failed to relieve his symptoms. In 1974, he had a second spinal operation involving a posterior fusion. On Voyles’ first application for benefits, he was awarded a closed period of disability commencing July 1, 1973, and ending September 30,1974. No appeal was taken from the Appeals Council decision refusing to extend the period of disability. Voyles then filed a second application for benefits, contending that he was permanently and totally disabled from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. That application was denied. Voyles filed a final application for disability benefits on February 7, 1978, the denial of which forms the basis for this appeal.
There is conflicting medical testimony in the record on the extent of Voyles’ disability, but it is conceded that Voyles could not return to the job he previously held, and all of the competent testimony indicates that the type of work, if any, that Voyles would be able to do is severely limited. Because Voyles is unable to return to the job he had held prior to his disabling injury, the burden shifted to the Secretary to produce evidence by a vocational expert showing that there were jobs available that suited Voyles’ qualifications and capabilities. E. g., Woodard v. Secretary of Dep’t of HEW, 626 F.2d 46 (8th Cir. 1980); Warner v. Califano, 623 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1980); see Wroblewski v. Califano, 609 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1979).
The Secretary has failed to establish in this proceeding, through the testimony of a vocational expert or other evidence, that Voyles was able to perform any jobs that were in the employment market. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is reversed and remanded with directions to order the Secretary to either grant Voyles his requested benefits or to hold an additional evidentiary hearing for purposes of determining whether there existed gainful activity for which Voyles was qualified as of December 31, 1977, the date his insured status under the Social Security Act expired.

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