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:
David Walter COPELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom GREEN and Kelly L. York, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-7506
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 27, 1991.
Before HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, JOHNSON and CLARK , Senior Circuit Judges.
See Rule 34-2(b), Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Walter Copeland is a repeat litigant. In March 1990, he filed eight complaints with the district court, and he sought to proceed in forma pauperis in each of these lawsuits. On March 27,1990, the district court dismissed the eight lawsuits as frivolous and ordered that any future complaints submitted by Copeland not be filed unless approved by a judge of the court. This order was the subject of a previous appeal to this court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Following the March 27, 1990, order, Copeland continued to deluge the district court with complaints and other papers. The district court entered an order requiring Copeland to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for this abuse of his access to the court. Following a hearing at which Copeland appeared on his own behalf, the district court entered an order that (1) enjoined Copeland from entering the Hugo L. Black Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, until further order of the court; (2) directed Copeland to deliver any paper that he wished to file with the clerk of the district court through the United States Mail, rather than in person to the courthouse; and (3) directed that any paper thus received from Copeland be marked by the clerk, “Received,” and not marked “Filed,” unless and until the paper was first submitted by the clerk to a judge of the court and approved by the judge for actual filing. It is this order that is the subject of this appeal.
There is no doubt that the district court had the power to devise an injunction to protect itself against Copeland’s abuses. We hold, however, that the provisions barring Copeland from entering the federal courthouse in Birmingham and from delivering documents to the Clerk of Court are impermissibly restrictive of his right to access to that court. In all other respects, the district court’s order complies with constitutional mandates.
Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, and the case is REMANDED with instructions that the district court enter an order consistent with this opinion. Copeland’s motions, filed with this court, for the FBI to provide a copy of his complete file, for the U.S. Marshal Service to provide a copy of his complete file, and to require Tom Green to vacate the office of the U.S. Marshal are DENIED.
. See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir.1986).

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