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:
NG HEU YIM v. BONHAM, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization.
No. 7944.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 28, 1935.
Fred H. Lysons, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and F. A. Pellegrini, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied Dec. 20, 1935.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, a Chinese person, sought admission to the United States, claiming to be a native-born citizen thereof who, as a child, had gone to China, and was entitled to re-enter. A Special Board of Inquiry, appointed under section 17 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 887, 8 USCA § 153, determined, after hearing, that appellant should not be admitted. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor upheld this determination. Appellant then petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, and, from an order denying his petition, has appealed to this court.
The Secretary’s decision denying appellant admission to the United States is final and conclusive upon the courts, unless it be shown that the proceedings were manifestly unfair or conducted in an unlawful or improper ■ way, or that there was a manifest abuse of discretion. Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson, 273 U. S. 352, 358, 47 S. Ct. 346, 71 L. Ed. 680; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454, 457, 40 S. Ct. 566, 64 L. Ed. 1010; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460, 468, 32 S. Ct. 734, 56 L. Ed. 1165; Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673, 675, 32 S. Ct. 359, 56 L. Ed. 606; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 11, 28 S. Ct. 201, 52 L. Ed. 369; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 261, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040.
Appellant charges that the Board of Special Inquiry and the Secretary of Labor acted unfairly, arbitrarily, and capriciously in rejecting and dismissing from consideration evidence which, appellant says, established his birth in the United States, and which, he says, was “uncontroverted and free from material discrepancy.” This charge is not supported by the record. Appellant produced no birth certificate or other documentary proof that he was born in the United States. He testified before the Board on August 13, 1934, that he was born at Ogden, Utah, on February 2, 1903, and that when he was nine or ten years old he, with his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister, went to China, all of them traveling on the same ship and sleeping in the same room during the voyage. On March 2, 1935, at a further hearing before the Board, appellant testified that, in going to China, he and other members of his family did not travel together or on the same ship, but that he and one brother went on one ship from San Francisco to China, that the other members of his family went first to Mexico, and thence, on another ship, to China, and that his previous testimony on this subject was false. In view of this admitted falsity, the Board and the Secretary were warranted in rejecting the whole of appellant’s testimony. Ngai Kwan Ying v. Nagle (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 166; Yee Sing Jong v. Nagle (C. C. A.) 40 F. (2d) 907; Chin Lim v. Nagle (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 474; Moy Chee Chong v. Weedin (C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 263; Weedin v. Ng Bin Fong (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 821.
John Walker, a white witness of good character and unquestioned veracity, testified that between 1900 and 1912 he was well acquainted with Ng Ah Lim, the alleged father of appellant; that Ng Ah Lim and his wife then lived at Ogden, Utah, and had several children, one of whom was a boy known to the witness as Ng Heu Yim; that the witness first saw this boy when he (the boy) was two or three months old; that he was “more or less familiar” with him thereafter until the family left Ogden in 1912 or 1913, the boy being then about nine or ten years old; that the witness did not see the boy again until 1933, at which time he went to the Immigration Office at Seattle for the purpose of identifying, and did then and there identify, appellant as the boy whom he had last seen at Ogden more than twenty years before. The witness stated that he was able to make this identification because of the “very striking resemblance” between appellant and his alleged father; that appellant “looks exactly like I expected him to look. He is just like his father was when I first saw his father, except that he is a little thinner. He looks like he looked when he was a little boy.” Asked if he could positively identify appellant, the witness stated: “He looks like Heu Yim to me. I could be fooled, but I do not think so.”
This is far from constituting “uncontroverted evidence” that appellant was born in the United States. All it amounts to is that the witness Walker believed that appellant and the Chinese boy whom he had known twenty years previously were one and the same person. The Board of Special Inquiry, who saw and observed appellant, did not accept or share this belief. It cannot be said that, in rejecting it, the Board abused its discretion or acted unfairly or improperly. Tang Tun v. Edsell, supra, 223 U. S. 673, page 681, 32 S. Ct. 359, 56 L. Ed. 606; Hung You Hong v. United States (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 67; Au Wee Sheung v. United States (C. C. A.) 44 F.(2d) 681.
No other witness testified that appellant was born in the United States. There is, therefore, no basis for the claim that the Board or the Secretary unfairly, arbitrarily, or capriciously rejected “uncoutroverted” evidence to that effect.
Appellant complains of the Board’s action in rejecting a statement by the Honorable L. B. Schwelienbach, United States Senator from the state of Washington, to the effect that appellant was “the most distinctive looking Chinese” he had ever seen. In his brief appellant refers to Senator Schwelienbach as a “witness” and to his statement as “testimony.” As a matter of fact, the Senator was not a witness and gave no testimony in the case. The statement referred to was contained in a letter to the Commissioner of Immigration. Though not sworn to, it appears to have been given respectful consideration. The Board concluded, however, and we think was justified in concluding, that the Senator’s statement had no materiality “with respect to the identity or admissibility of the applicant.” Appellant’s contention that, in so holding, the Board showed prejudice or unfairness cannot be sustained.
Order 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