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:
Mitchell BRANFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15239.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
March 2, 1966.
Mitchell Branford, Jr., pro se.
Richard P. Stein, U. S. Atty., James Manahan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
KILEY, Circuit Judge.
This is a pro se petition for habeas corpus by a prisoner sentenced March 25, 1961, by a general court-martial for a violation of 10 U.S.C. § 918, Article 118 of the Universal Code of Military Justice. The district court dismissed the petition. We affirm.
The petitioner contends that the court-martial was without jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution against him for a capital offense in time of peace; that he is entitled to a jury trial; and that he was not informed at the trial that “at least one third of the members of the Courts-Martial could have been enlisted men.”
This court in Owens v. Markley, 289 F.2d 751 (7th Cir. 1961), decided the first two contentions adversely to the position of petitioner. The last contention has no merit. A request for enlisted men to serve on the court-martial was required by 10 U.S.C. § 825(c) (1) to be made before the court-martial was convened. And if petitioner’s counsel failed to inform him of 10 U.S.C. § 825(c) (1), the point cannot be raised here for the first time. Finally, and conclusively, petitioner does not show or suggest that he has exhausted his military appellate or post-conviction remedies. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 141, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953).
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: 1