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:
Percy WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 78-1815.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 13, 1978.
Decided Dec. 18, 1978.
Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., and Bruce D. White, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After an unsuccessful attempt to bring suit in the United States Supreme Court, plaintiff filed a virtually incomprehensible complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The complaint began, “No cooperative, COMPLAINT I give the nation, Ideas for economy come now Plaintiff, Percy White, and for his cause of action, States to the court: — A: criminal Act.” [sic] and wrongdoing.” At plaintiffs request counsel was appointed on June 6,1978, by United States District Judge James Meredith, but on July 18, 1978, Judge Meredith entered an order relieving appointed counsel.
Additional documents, as incomprehensible as the original complaint, were filed by plaintiff and on October 23, 1978, the United States Attorney filed a motion to dismiss. United States District Judge H. Kenneth Wangelin issued an order October 31, 1978, granting the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In an accompanying memorandum Judge Wangelin wrote:
Plaintiff’s complaint(s) is a wholly incomprehensible compilation of unrelated phrases, diatribes and ramblings. * *
Nowhere in the documents is there anything even roughly approximating a short and plain statement of the claim, nor does it appear, even under the most liberal of standards, that the documents state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff filed a motion of appeal in this court and was granted leave by Judge Wangelin to proceed in forma pauperis. Both plaintiff’s motion of appeal and subsequent documents delivered by him to this court are further evidence of his inability to intelligibly present his claims.
Pursuant to our Rule 9(a) we find this appeal to be frivolous and entirely without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons given by Judge Wangelin as set forth above.
. The file contains the following letter from appointed counsel to plaintiff:
June 26, 1978
Dear Mr. White:
It has been over one week since I wrote you concerning my inability to help you further with your case without factual information. I have spent a not insubstantial amount of time researching what appears to be your complaint, but I am unable to do-any more unless you contact me and provide me with the facts of your case. As I told you in my earlier letter, I met with Mr. Henry Voges at the St. Louis Civil Rights Enforcement Agency, but contrary to your suggestion, he was unable to furnish any information whatsoever to help me understand your case.
Even though I met with you personally for approximately three hours after I was appointed to represent you in this case, I still have absolutely no understanding of the factual basis to your complaint. Please contact me so that 1 may help you.
Louis F. Bonacorsi

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