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:
Ira TUCKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17993.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 27, 1960.
Charles V. Silliman, Gladstone L. Kohloss, Orlando, Fla., for appellant.
Don M. Stichter, Special Atty., Robert F. Nunez, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., E. Coleman Madsen, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of possession of moonshine liquor. He appeals, saying the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Across the street from appellant’s residence is a “jook”, the Moonlight Club, operated by appellant’s wife with some help from him. Behind the Club was an open tract supposedly owned by a person identified only as “Pete the Tailor”. The appellant and two others were each permitted to keep hogs in separate pens on these premises and each had a nearby cooking machine for preparing food for his hogs. A deputy sheriff found nine gallon jugs of unstamped whiskey near the appellant’s cooking machine. The appellant was charged with its possession. The deputy testified that he had taken moonshine “off a lot of customers at the jook.” No more than this was adduced to identify the appellant with the liquor. It is not enough. No control or dominion of the contraband by the appellant is shown. Construing the evidence most favorably to the verdict, we conclude it does not sustain a verdict of guilt. The court should have directed an acquittal of the appellant. The judgment and sentence of the district court is reversed and a judgment of acquittal is here rendered for the appellant.
Reversed and rendered.

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