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:
Larry A. ROWE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19909.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 20, 1966.
Decided Dec. 1, 1966.
Mr. Russell S. Bernhard, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. Robert Kenly Webster, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Leventhal, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, in two counts, and of assault with a deadly weapon. He alleges that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a judgment of acquittal, made at both the close of the government’s case and his case, because the jury could not have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not acted in self-defense.
While appellant was visiting at the home of friends, the Woodsons, one Joe Canty, who inhabited an apartment in the home, was chased there by a group of five men with whom he had had an altercation on the street. The group remained in front of the home, and Wood-son came out to talk with them, apparently to send them away. An argument between the five and Woodson, two of his daughters, and Canty ensued, with Wood-son brandishing a hatchet and one of the group carrying a jack handle. At no time did any of the group enter the Woodson house or move up to the porch. Appellant left this scene, went to his nearby apartment, and returned with a fully loaded .25 caliber pistol which he kept there. There was testimony that as appellant approached the porch of the Woodson house, he passed in front of three of the five men who had gathered there, and made some kind of insulting comment to them. There was also testimony to suggest that the men did not rush the appellant until he had brought forth his gun, or fired a shot into the ground. Appellant, and other witnesses, testified that the group began to move toward him first, that he then pulled his gun and fired a warning shot, and that when they didn’t stop he began to shoot at them. Two of his attackers were killed, and a third was wounded. At this point, the other two stopped their advance, and defendant ran back into the Woodson house.
Appellant testified that he did not know any of the five personally, but that he knew one of them was the boy friend of the girl with whom he had spent the previous night, and that he believed this decedent had manhandled her earlier that morning and might have done harm to him if he knew who appellant was.
The jury could have concluded that the defendant was doing more than simply protecting himself against an unjustified attack. Defendant had reason to dislike and fear one of the five men; the altercation in front of the Woodson house involved friends of his; he left an apparently safe haven to arm himself and return to the scene; he inflamed the situation with his words to the men gathered there, even though he could have returned silently to the safety of the Wood-son porch. Finally, the jury could have credited the testimony of those eyewitnesses who suggested that defendant had fired or brandished his gun before he was rushed.
These facts could have led the jury to conclude that defendant returned to the scene to stir up further trouble, if not actually to kill anyone, and that his actions instigated the men into rushing him. Self-defense may not be claimed by one who deliberately places himself in a position where he has reason to believe “his presence * * * would provoke trouble.” Laney v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 56, 58, 294 F. 412, 414 (1923). Appellant cites numerous cases which hold that a defendant may claim self-defense if he arms himself in order to proceed upon his normal activities, even if he realizes that danger may await him. However, we think that the jury could have found that the course of action defendant here followed was for an unlawful purpose.
A defendant is not entitled to a directed judgment of acquittal if the trial judge determines that “upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 392, 160 F.2d 229, 232, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947). The trial judge did not err in his refusal to direct an acquittal.
Affirmed.
. D.C.Code §§ 22-502, 22-2405. He was also convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, D.C.Code § 22-3204, but he does not appeal from that conviction.
. We do not consider appellant’s other claim that the trial court incorrectly ex-eluded evidence of prior acts of violence committed by one of the decedents, since this evidence was merely cumulative,

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