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:
REED v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8128.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Submitted May 11, 1042.
Decided June 1, 1942.
Otho D. Branson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Edward M. Curran, U. S. Atty., and John C. Conliff, Jr., and Charles B. Murray, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and ED-GERTON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of stealing from the person of one David E. Williams a small sum of money. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a period of from two to six years.
At the trial defendant produced no witnesses and reserved no exceptions. His trial counsel has filed an affidavit in which he informs us that the case was submitted to the jury on the single question whether the defendant did “snatch from the hand of the complaining witness, American currency in the amount of two dollars”; that as attorney for the defendant he attempted to secure interviews with such witnesses as were available and was unable to find any who would testify in defendant’s behalf. After the appeal, it being represented to us that appellant’s former counsel had withdrawn, we requested the trial court to appoint a member of the bar of this court to represent him on appeal. At the call of the case we were informed by present counsel that from the interviews and inspection of the record the only possible error of which appellant could complain was the failure of trial counsel to subpoena witnesses who appellant contends would have testified on his behalf. Counsel, therefore, took the names of witnesses furnished by appellant and had subpoenas issued for their appearance before the District Attorney on a given date, but on that date only two of eight were found and served, and both asserted they had no knowledge of the offense or the circumstances under which it occurred. Counsel informs us he knows of no ground on which the appeal can be sustained.
In this state of the record, and in view also of the fact that the evidence for the government was not stenographically reported and is not contained in the record, we have no alternative but to affirm the judgment.
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