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:
Willard J. FOSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and David L. Davis, Warden, Kentucky State Reformatory, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15047.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 27, 1962.
Willard J. Foster, in pro. per.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., of Kentucky, Frankfort, Ky., for appellees.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and BOYD, District Judge.
PER curiam:.
Willard J. Foster, petitioner-appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The petitioner was tried and convicted of armed robbery on an indictment returned :by a grand jury, under KRS 433.140.
This conviction was reversed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (331 S.W.2d 277) for the reason that the indictment was insufficient to charge the offense under the statute. The indictment was quashed by the trial judge and a new indictment returned by the grand jury charging armed robbery. The petitioner was again convicted of the crime of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction (348 S.W.2d 759) and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. (368 U.S. 993, 82 S.Ct. 613, 7 L.Ed.2d 530) The District Court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and this appeal followed. The essence of the appellant’s claim is that he was twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
It is provided in Kentucky Criminal Code, Section 270, “The granting of a new trial places the parties in the same position as if no trial had been had.” Under circumstances such as are involved in the case at bar, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has held that the situation is the same as if no offense had been committed and that no double jeopardy exists. Fain v. Commonwealth, 109 Ky. 545, 59 S.W. 1091; Ward v. Commonwealth, Ky., 128 S.W. 72; Hoskins v. Commonwealth, 152 Ky. 805, 154 S.W. 919; Newton v. Commonwealth, 197 Ky. 496, 247 S.W. 707; Allen v. Commonwealth, 272 Ky. 533, 114 S.W.2d 757. Section 270 of the Kentucky Criminal Code violates no Federal Constitutional right of the appellant. In Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288, the Supreme Court held that a state could appeal a criminal case and if reversed for errors in the trial, the defendant could be retried without violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, upon conviction in the first trial, the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. In the second trial, after appeal by the state and reversal, he received a death sentence.
It is the general rule followed by the Supreme Court of the United States that a retrial for an offense, after a reversal of a prior conviction, does not constitute double jeopardy, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300; Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521, 26 S.Ct. 121, 50 L.Ed. 292; Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103; State of La., ex. rel Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 67 S.Ct. 374, 91 L.Ed. 422; Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 189, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199.
The claim of the appellant that he could have been retried on the original indictment, limited to instructions on the common law offense of robbery, but that he could not be tried on a new indictment which properly charged armed robbery is without merit. * * * “a defendant, who procures a judgment against him upon an indictment to be set aside, may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offense of which he had been convicted.” United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 672, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 1195.
The judgment of the District Court 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: 1