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:
Roger HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17153.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 2, 1962.
Decided Feb. 28, 1963.
Mr. William B. Bryant, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Max Frescoln, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee. Mr. Tim Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Pretty-man, Senior Circuit Judge, and Wilbur K. Miller, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of bribery. It appears that two police officers called at appellant’s apartment on a routine investigation of suspected illegal activity, i. e., gambling. Prior to their second call they advised their commanding of-fieer that they suspected, due to some conversation had with appellant upon the first call, that appellant might attempt a bribery. They left with the commanding officer all the money they had in their pockets. When they reached appellant’s apartment they were admitted and, having entered, walked around and looked over the room. Appellant testified that one of the officers picked up a cigar and' said: “Well, I can’t afford to smoke-these. I can’t afford two for a quarter.” Appellant then gave the officers six dollars apiece. He testified: “I said, ‘You-all get you some cigars.’ ” The officers placed him under arrest, returned to headquarters, and gave their commanding officer the twelve dollars.
Upon the trial appellant defended upon the ground of entrapment and requested an instruction on that theory. The trial judge was of opinion that the-evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue as to entrapment, and declined to-give the instruction. We agree with the trial court.
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