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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kay CORREA-NEGRON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-2588.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 15, 1972.
Rehearing Denied July 24, 1972.
Martha Goldin (argued), Alan Saltz-man, Hollywood, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Shelby R. Gott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MERRILL and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Francis C. Whelan, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant’s contention that the trial court should have dismissed the action because the government placed material witnesses out of the reach of appellant’s subpoena power is not supported by the record. First, appellant did not move the trial court for an order dismissing the indictment herein. Second, there is no showing whatsoever that the government ever found any of the other aliens who accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Juarez across the international boundary line.
Appellant’s contention that the judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded in order to afford appellant a competency hearing is likewise without merit. There is nothing in the record to suggest that appellant was mentally incompetent. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in the sentencing of appellant.
Appellant’s contention that there was no evidence of conspiracy is frivolous. The evidence of the prosecution established a conspiracy between defendant, one Huero, and others. The overt acts charged in the indictment were committed in the United States; and the conspiracy charged had for its object crime in the United States although carried on partly in and partly out of the United States. Thus, the conspiracy was within the jurisdiction of the United States. Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 624, 47 S.Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. 793.
The contention of appellant that there is insufficient evidence to convict appellant of encouraging and inducing the illegal entry of aliens is likewise frivolous. The evidence establishes that the defendant met with Mr. and Mrs. Juarez in Mexico, told them he would get them into the United States, and introduced them to Huero, telling them in effect that Huero would provide the method for their illegal entry. This Huero did. Also defendant told the Juarez’s that he would meet them in San Diego to assist them in travel to Los Angeles. The fact that these acts and conversations took place in Mexico does not make the defendant any less guilty. Claramont v. United States, 26 F.2d 797 (5th Cir.)
The contention that there is insufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction of harboring aliens is likewise frivolous. The defendant met the Juarez’s again at a San Diego hotel where the Juarez’s had been taken by Huero’s helper. From San Diego the aliens traveled north in an automobile supplied by defendant; he told them to wait until instructed by him that it was safe to proceed through the area on the highway where searches of automobiles for aliens are intermittently maintained. Such evidence is clearly sufficient to support the verdict of guilt.
The judgment 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: 0