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:
Isaac WEBER, Appellant, v. J. T. WILLINGHAM, Warden, Appellee.
No. 8426.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 16, 1966.
Richard W. Breithaupt, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
James R. Ward, Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, Topeka, Kan., was with him on brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner on conviction of the narcotic laws (21 U.S.C. § 174) was sentenced to a term of 10 years. Section 7237(d), Title 26 U.S.C. provides in substance that upon conviction of offenses under the narcotic laws “the imposition or execution of sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted” nor shall Section 4202, Title 18 U.S.C. relative to “released on parole after serving one-third” of a sentence be applicable.
After serving his full sentence with statutory good time allowance as provided in Section 4161, Title 18 U.S.C., petitioner was issued a certificate of mandatory release as provided in Section 4163 “as if on parole” pursuant to Section 4164. Subsequent to his release, he was retaken into custody for violation of the terms of his release. While serving the remainder of his sentence of about 1200 days, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that since by the terms of the statute (§ 7237(d)) he was not subject to being “released on parole after serving one-third” of his term under Section 4202, he was not subject to release “as if on parole” under Section 4164; that the Parole Board was therefore without jurisdiction to retake him by warrant under Section 4205, and he is therefore entitled to be released forthwith.
The crux of his argument is to the •effect that the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction on parole is found in Section 4202, and since that Section is expressly inapplicable, the Board is without jurisdiction of one who is mandatorily released “as if on parole.”
The full and complete answer to this contention is that Sections 4164 and 4205 are unaffected by the exclusionary provisions of Section 7237(d). Parole under 4202 is discretionary in the Board. But, release of a prisoner who has served the full term of his sentence, less statutory good time deductions, is mandatory, and he is to “be treated as if released on parole, and shall be subject to all provisions of law relating to the parole of United States prisoners until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.” 18 U.S.C. § 4164
Section 4205 authorizes the Parole Board or a member thereof to issue a warrant for the retaking of any prisoner who has violated his parole within the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced. These two Sections are sui generis, and the jurisdiction of the Parole Board to revoke the parole of a prisoner who has been mandatorily released under Section 4164 is not dependent upon its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 4202. United States v. Figueroa, 2 Cir., 325 F.2d 418; Conley v. United States Board of Parole, D.C. 221 F.Supp. 445; Cf. Hicks v. Reid, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 194 F.2d 327.
The statutes are not indefinite or ambiguous with respect to their applicability to this petitioner or the conditions imposed by their terms. The Board did not lack jurisdiction to issue the warrant and retake the prisoner for the service of the remainder of the term of his sentence. The judgment is 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