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:
TAYLOR v. STEELE et al.
No. 14372.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 9, 1951.
See also, 182 F.2d 473.
H. Jackson Daniel, Jefferson City, Mo., appointed by the Court (Salkey & Jones, St. Louis, Mo.,: on the brief) for appellant. Appellant, also, submitted a brief pro se.
Fred L. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo. (Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before ' SANBORN, THOMAS, and COLLET, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in forma pauperis from an order denying a petition of the appellant, an indigent federal prisoner, for leave to commence in forma pauperis a civil action for damages against the Warden of the United States Medical ‘Center for Federal Prisoners.at Springfield, Missouri, and members of his staff, upon the grounds that appellant’s transfer by the Attorney General to that institution was illegal, that the appellees are therefore liable for false imprisonment, and that they have subjected appellant to medical treatment without his consent.
This Court appointed counsel to represent the appellant on this appeál. His counsel has, by brief and oral argument, done all that is humanly possible to make it appear that the appellant in his proposed complaint has stated a meritorious claim against the appellees, and should have been permitted to proceed against them in forma pauperis.
For the purposes of this appeal we assume, without deciding, that the order appealed from is appealable and that the complaint which was attached to the appellant’s petition was not subject to dismissal for insufficiency of statement. It is our opinion, however, that this appeal is without merit and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the appellant to commence in forma pauperis an action for damages against the appellees. We find nothing in Section 1915, Title 28, U.S.C.A. which requires á District Court to permit a federal prisoner to sue in forma pauperis those in whose custody he has been placed by the Attorney General for confinement and medical care.
The order appealed from 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