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:
Alta BUMPUS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donald E. CLARK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 77-2883.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 6, 1980.
Reassigned May 10, 1982.
Decided March 29, 1983.
Farris, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion.
Michael H. Marcus, Portland, Or., for plaintiffs-appellants.
John B. Leahy, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellees.
Before HUG, FLETCHER and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion of this court Bumpus v. Clark, 681 F.2d 679 (9th Cir.1982), is withdrawn and the case is remanded to the district court with direction to dismiss the case as moot. Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92, 93, 99 S.Ct. 2149, 2150, 60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979); see United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). Our opinion was filed on July 16, 1982. The appellants (plaintiffs below) were all residents of Edgefield Manor, a nursing home operated by Multnomah County, Oregon. Edgefield Manor was closed by the County on April 20, 1982. All residents were removed prior to closure. The totality of the relief appellants sought was related to the threatened closure of Edgefield Manor. Both the subject matter of the action and the plaintiff class (as alleged and certified) were inextricably tied to the existence and continued operation of Edgefield Manor. No decree by the district court granting injunctive or declaratory relief can undo the closure, specify procedures for closing, or prevent the transfer of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not request reopening of the home. No relief requested by plaintiffs can be granted. The court is without power “to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [it].” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). We have no article III jurisdiction over cases in which the district court has lost the power to grant relief if the appellate court were to reverse the judgment. E.g., St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 42-43, 63 S.Ct. 910, 911, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978).
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc rehearing and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. 35(b). The suggestion for a rehearing en banc is hereby denied.

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