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. Frederico G. RANDACCIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 351, Docket 35251.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 20, 1971.
Decided March 24, 1971.
H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Western District of New York, for plaintiff-appellee.
Herald Price Fahringer, Buffalo, N. Y. (Frank G. Raichle, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before MEDINA, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York of a motion pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The appellant was convicted of conspiring to commit a robbery which would affect interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1964) and to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2314 (1964). The conviction was affirmed by this court, United States v. Caci, 401 F.2d 664 (2d Cir. 1968), but the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the conviction should be set aside on the ground that the government’s evidence was based upon unlawful electronic eavesdropping. Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969).
After a hearing on the remand the District Court held that no evidence was unlawfully used and that determination is not an issue here. However the hearing revealed the existence of logs of surveillance showing that appellant was a regular visitor at a woman friend’s apartment on Essex Street in Buffalo, New York, where he claims to have been on February 5, 1965, while the meeting on which the government based its conspiracy charge was taking place at another location. Appellant contends that these logs constitute newly discovered evidence of a custom or habit which gives so much support to his alibi as to entitle him to a new trial.
We disagree and affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial.
For a new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, “(1) the evidence must have been discovered since the trial; (2) it must be material to the factual issues at the trial, and not merely cumulative * * *; (3) it must be of such a nature that it would probably produce a different verdict in the event of a retrial. United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 357 U.S. 937, 78 S.Ct. 1385, 2 L.Ed.2d 1551 (1958).” United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573, 576-577 (2d Cir. 1969). Appellant’s evidence fails to satisfy any of these requirements.
A review of the record shows that what appellant claims to be newly discovered evidence is no more than a new approach to facts already known to the appellant at the time of the trial. Before the trial, counsel for the appellant had been given copies of the surveillance logs for the entire month of February 1965. Among these logs was one which showed that the appellant had been overheard at his woman friend’s apartment on February 5, 1965 at 7:50 p. m. The log then indicated that the television was turned up loud and played continuously until 12:16 a. m. when the appellant was heard to leave. The men who conducted the monitoring stated that they did not hear Randaccio leave the apartment during the evening. However neither did they hear anything which would indicate his continued presence in the apartment between 7:50 p. m. and 12:16 a. m. The testimony of the government informant, Pascal Calabrese, placed Randaccio at the conspiratorial meeting at 60 Manchester Place at about 8:30 p. m. The meeting place is about nine-tenths of a mile from the Essex Street address. Thus as far as the surveillance logs go, it was possible that appellant left the Essex Street apartment sometime after 7:50 p. m., went to Manchester Place and returned before 12:16 a. m.
We reject the argument that the surveillance logs showing appellant present at the Essex Street address almost every Friday night establish a “pattern of conduct” which constitutes “newly discovered evidence” of sufficient cogency to justify the granting of a new trial.
Order and conviction 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