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 of America, Appellee, v. Richard D. NEWHAM, Appellant.
No. 83-2171.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 27, 1984.
Decided March 2, 1984.
Richard D. Newham, pro se.
James M. Rosenbaum, U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Richard Newham appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to set aside sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that the Government broke its plea bargain agreement with him by failing to clarify to the trial court the extent of his cooperation, and that as a result the court had incomplete information at the time of his sentencing. We conclude that the Government adequately complied with the terms of the plea agreement, and we therefore affirm.
In 1980, Newham pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud pursuant to a plea bargain. The bargain required him to cooperate fully with the Government and to testify at a mail fraud trial against three co-defendants who operated a business known as Federal Gold and Silver. In exchange the Government was to inform the court of his cooperation for the court’s consideration in sentencing. Under the agreement, the court could sentence Newham to up to five years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine on each of the two counts. Newham cooperated with the Government before and during trial, and his cooperation was duly reported to the court prior to sentencing. On February 9, 1981, Newham received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine on each count, sentences to run consecutively.
In 1982, Newham testified for the prosecution in a separate mail fraud trial in Chicago. He claims the plea bargain agreement in the Federal Gold and Silver case required the Government to report all aspects of his cooperation to the trial court for consideration in determining his sentence. Because the Government failed to inform the court that his cooperation was to continue beyond the date of sentencing, he contends that the Government violated the agreement, and he is entitled to be sentenced in light of his additional cooperation.
After reviewing the record, the District Court concluded that the agreement required the Government only to report New-ham’s cooperation in connection with the Federal Gold and Silver trial. Any additional cooperation provided by Newham after his sentencing was not intended to be part of the sentencing consideration.
The District Court’s factual determination about the terms of the plea agreement is not clearly erroneous. The record supports the conclusion that the United States Attorney’s statement to the court at the time of Newham’s sentencing fulfilled the Government’s obligation under the plea-bargain agreement.
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Diana E. Murphy, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. On November 21, 1983, Newham was paroled after serving 33 months of his sentence.
. The Government submits that Newham’s later testimony in the Chicago case was the result of a separate agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office in Chicago, pursuant to which that office was to make Newham’s cooperation known to the Parole Commission.

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