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:
STURTEVANT v. OOMS, Commissioner of Patents.
No. 9204.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Oct. 17, 1946.
Decided Nov. 4, 1946.
Mr. Bertrand W. Coliman, of Chicago, 111., with whom Messrs. M. Hudson Rath-burn and Edwin R. Hutchinson, both of Chicago, 111., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C., Solicitor, United States Patent Office, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
PRETTYMAN, Associate Justice.
Appellant secured a patent on a torque wrench. Later he applied for a reissue of the patent. The specification and drawings of the original patent remained unchanged in the reissue application, but that application contained five new claims. It was rejected by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office. Appellant filed an action in the District Court under Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes. The court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.
The specification and drawings reveal a torque measuring wrench, consisting of a head (designed to engage a nut or a bolt) and a handle, connected by a flexible steel bar, and an indicator. When the wrench is used to tighten a nut or bolt, the pressure applied to the handle causes the spring bar to flex, and the indicator shows the amount of the pressure. The head is rigidly connected to one end of the steel bar, and the handle is rigidly connected to the other end.
The new claims in the reissue application say that the head (work-engaging member) is “pivotally supported” adjacent one end of the handle, “rotatably mounted” with respect to the handle, and “pivotally connected” with the handle. Appellant says that one essential characteristic of a torque measuring wrench is a pivotal movement of the handle with respect to the head, that otherwise there is no means for measuring the pressure being applied. He says that this pivotal movement constitutes a pivotal support or pivotal connection between the head and the handle.
We think the terms “pivotally supported”, “rotatably mounted”, and “pivotally connected” are structural terms. Structurally speaking, there is no pivotal connection or support between the head and the handle in this wrench; both connections are rigid. It is true that the slight movement of the handle with respect to the head, permitted by the flexing of the spring bar, might be described as “pivotal”, in that “pivotal” might be used to describe any axial movement of one body in relation to another. But “pivotal” used in that sense does not describe the structure, or the manner in which the members are “supported”, “mounted” or “connected” in relation to one another. Thus, a gate mounted only on a spring might be said to have a pivotal movement with respect to the gatepost. But a spring is not a pivot, and spring construction is not pivotal connection.
Appellant copied his new claims from a patent issued to one Zimmerman, in order that an interference proceeding might be instituted. He says that if the head in the Zimmerman patent is pivotally connected or pivotally supported in relation to the handle, the same is true of his patent. Examination of the Zimmerman patent, however, discloses that the working member is a rotatable stud which moves in a boss on the head of the wrench. Thus, there is a pivotal construction in the connection or support of the working member in relation to the rest of that wrench.
In the view which we take, it is unnecessary to discuss the other points presented by the parties.
Affirmed.
35 U.S.C.A. § 63.

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