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:
Willis Arthur TRIMIER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16890.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1961.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the certificate of the trial court that his attempt to appeal is without merit and so not taken in good faith, and he asks leave from us to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis. The appeal is from an order denying, without a hearing, his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to have his sentence vacated.
Appellant had pleaded guilty to having, as a person previously convicted of a crime of violence, transported a firearm in interstate commerce, thereby violating 15 U.S.C.A. § 902(e). A sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed upon him.
His motion under § 2255 alleges that he had pleaded guilty because of representations to him that he would not be given a sentence of more than three years. He does not charge that the representations were made by the United States Attorney, or that they purported to be held out to him as resting in any other way on some contact with, or expression by, the court.
What he predicates his motion on were statements which he says were made to him by a deputy marshal, and by his court-appointed attorney. He alleges that the deputy marshal told him: “The maximum sentence on this charge is five years, but nobody ever gets over three, and I can personally promise you that you won’t get over three years.” His attorney is claimed to have stated: “There’s nothing I can do, because the Government has an open-and-shut case against you; because they caught you with a pistol and you have a record, you will be convicted. I will ask for leniency, and because you didn’t commit any crime of violence or anything of that sort, you won’t get any more than three years.”
If these statements were made, they cannot, on the contents of appellant’s motion, be said to have constituted or to be capable of being regarded, in their source, circumstances, and form, as anything except expressions of personal views and opinions. No setting is shown that could in any way cause them to be coercive. Further, in their lack of any actual or purported official basis, either judicial or prosecutional, the statements, and whatever reliance appellant may have chosen to place on them, did not constitute a legal taking-of-advantage or processive unfairness against appellant, requiring his conviction and sentence to be set aside.
To clear the records of the pending appeal, it will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee, and will then be dismissed as frivolous.
Appeal dismissed.

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