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 v. BRAWER.
No. 10884.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Sept. 22, 1953.
Alford Brawer, pro se.
Grover C. Richman, Jr., Newark, N. J., and John R. Everitt, South Amboy, N. J., for appellee.
Before MARIS, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This memorandum subsequent is explanatory of this court’s order entered on July 28, 1953 denying rehearing after we had affirmed petitioner’s conviction of a crime against the United States. We make this explanation because a communication from the petitioner, now a prisoner without counsel, reveals a misunderstanding of the factual and legal situation with which this court was confronted in connection with one matter of which he complains.
On his appeal Brawer urged that one of the jurors who tried him was biased, that circumstances indicating bias were brought to the attention of the trial judge and that no sufficient corrective action was taken. We disposed of this contention by saying that we were able to find nothing about any such occurrences in the record. But in seeking rehearing, appellant urged that he had reasonably relied upon this court to discover and review all that happened in the District Court relevant to any error alleged by him.
Actually this court in connection with this appeal ordered up the entire record of the proceedings in the District Court. We decided the appeal upon what was authoritatively certified to us as the complete record. Orderly procedure dictates that we thus restrict our review to the record.
If appellant has a continuing complaint that something prejudicial occurred during the course of his trial but was not recorded, then he must in some appropriate manner prove what happened. Procedurally this can be done in the District Court by filing a motion challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence as authorized by Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code and by offering proof of any matters not of record properly alleged in support of such a motion. Such proof and the findings of the District Court predicated thereon would be reviewable in this court. Thus, if the appellant believes that any of his fundamental rights have been violated in the matter of the juror, there is a way open to him to establish the facts and to have his complaint adjudicated and reviewed upon the established facts.

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: 1