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:
UNITED STATES ex rel. James Glenn, Petitioner, v. Hon. Daniel McMANN, Warden, Clinton State Prison, Dannemora, New York, Respondent.
Docket MR469.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Aug. 26, 1965.
Hays, Circuit Judge, dissented.
James Glenn, pro se.
Lillian Z. Cohen, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, New York City, for respondent.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
LUMBARD, Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and asks for the assignment of counsel.
Pursuant to his plea of guilty given in open court while he was represented by three lawyers, appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for 40 years to life by the Court of General Sessions in New York County on June 26,1962. In this appeal, he is seeking reversal of the denial by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, James T. Foley, J., without evidentiary hearing, of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant claims that his plea of guilty was unconstitutionally coerced by the existence of a confession that had been wrung from him involuntarily. Judge Foley denied appellant’s application on the ground that appellant had failed to exhaust state remedies.
A voluntary guilty plea entered on advice of counsel is a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects in any prior stage of the proceedings against him. United States ex rel. Swanson v. Reincke, 344 F.2d 260 (2d Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Boucher v. Reincke, 341 F.2d 977 (2d Cir. 1965). Any language to the contrary in United States ex rel. Vaughn v. LaVal-lee, 318 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1963) is herewith disavowed. In this posture, it is unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in concluding that appellant failed to exhaust his state remedies.
Petitioner’s motions are denied. The respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
HAYS, Circuit Judge, dissents and votes to grant the petitioner’s motions.

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