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:
John J. BURKE, Jr., Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE et al., Respondents, Appellees.
No. 5964.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
April 23, 1962.
Solomon Sandler, Gloucester, Mass., .for appellant.
Donald P. Horwitz, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and Robert N. Anderson, Attorneys, Department of Justice, W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Thomas P. O’Connor, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on brief, for appellees.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a petition in the court below for a declaratory judgment setting forth whether or not he is entitled to trial before the Tax Court of the United States on his petition pending in that court for redetermination of his income tax liability for the years 1952 to 1955, inclusive, for an order directing the respondents, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the local District Director, forthwith to issue statutory notices of deficiency with respect to those years, and for general relief. The respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and after hearing arguments of counsel the court below from the bench, so we are told, but the appellant’s record appendix does not include a transcript of the proceedings at the hearing, orally dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Immediately after the hearing counsel for the plaintiff filed notice of appeal.
It is true that a docket entry reflects the action taken by the court below on the bench. But a docket entry is not per se a judgment. It is but a minute of action taken by the court, for courts render judgments; clerks only enter them on the court records. What is determinative therefore is the action of the court, not that of the clerk, and lacking a transcript we do not know whether the court intended its announcement from the bench to be its “final decision” or not. That is to say, we cannot tell on the record presented to us whether the court’s statement from the bench embodied the essential elements of judgment. or was merely a forecast of the final action it intended to take. No specific form of words are required to constitute a judgment. Intention controls and a final decision may even be embodied in an opinion. United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 232, 78 S.Ct. 674, 2 L.Ed.2d 721 (1958). But since we know full well that it is the general, indeed the universal, practice of the court below to express its judgments in separate documents clearly so labeled, we can only assume, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, that it intended to follow its established practice in this case and did not intend its oral pronouncement from the bench to constitute its final determinative action. No judgment ever having been rendered:
An order will be entered dismissing this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

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