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:
JACKSON, Albert S., Jr., Appellant, v. The NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO.
No. 86-1544.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Feb. 19, 1987.
Decided June 30, 1987.
William D. Bubb, Sheldon N. Sandler, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Ned R. Phillips, Phillips & Cappiello, P.C., New York City, for appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and ROTH, District Judge.
Honorable Jane R. Roth, United States District Court Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
In West v. Conrail, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1538, 95 L.Ed.2d 32 (1987), the United States Supreme Court explained the significance of its decision in DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). In West, the Court noted that DelCostello had filled a gap in federal law by determining that the six-month limitation period prescribed in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (1982), should be applied to hybrid claims under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1982). The Court went on, however, explicitly to hold that it did not intend, by so filling a gap in the federal law, “to replace any part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with any part of § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.” West v. Conrail, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. at 1541. Rather, the Court found that “Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, and Rule 4 governs the procedure for effecting service and the period within which service must be made.” Id. Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules requires that service normally be made within 120 days of filing. Id.
Here, the parties concede that appellant’s cause of action under § 301 accrued on January 7, 1985 at the earliest. The parties also concede that appellant filed his claim on July 3, 1985, in accordance with Rule 3, and within six months of the accrual of his claim. It is also agreed that appellee was served with the complaint no later than July 16, 1985, within 120 days from July 3, 1985, in accordance with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules, and in accordance with all other provisions of Rule 4. Since West establishes that valid Rule 4 service is valid service for purposes of § 301, and since appellant properly filed under Rule 3 within the DelCostello period, appellant’s claim was not time-barred. See West v. Conrail, 820 F.2d 90 (3d Cir.1987) (per curiam) (service valid under Rule 3 and Rule 4 is valid service for hybrid claims).
Accordingly, the district court’s order, 646 F.Supp. 699, granting summary judgment for appellee because the action was untimely will be reversed in light of West and this case remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

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: 5