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:
Edward P. O’TOOLE, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Palmer C. SCAFATI, Superintendent of the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole, Respondent, Appellee.
No. 6982.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Heard Nov. 6, 1967.
Decided Dec. 1, 1967.
Certiorari Denied March 11,1968.
See 88 S.Ct. 1109.
Chester C. Paris, Wakefield, Mass., with whom Joseph J. Balliro, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.
Brian E. Coneannon, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Elliot L. Richardson, Atty. Gen., was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
Petitioner was convicted in the Massachusetts courts of fraudulent conversion, obtaining signatures under false pre-tences, larceny, and uttering forged instruments. Commonwealth v. O’Toole, 1967 Mass.Adv.Sh. 149, 223 N.E.2d 87. He brought habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, principally asserting that coercively obtained evidence had been admitted against him. The facts were stipulated. The court dismissed the petition, and he appeals.
While city manager of the City of Revere, petitioner was invited to the local district attorney’s office and asked by an assistant for a written explanation of overexpenditures. “He wanted him [petitioner] to give him a reason why he should not prosecute.” Though he promised to do so, petitioner never provided such a statement, but at later interviews in his own office he told a representative of the district attorney that he had handled certain matters and destroyed certain papers. These statements were introduced at the trial. Petitioner was never warned or officially informed of his constitutional rights.
Petitioner’s contention that he had been coerced is a singular one. Having been asked to explain why he should not be prosecuted, he was afraid that if he did not make explanation, viz., make exculpatory statements, “he would be prosecuted, and as the result of the prosecution would be fired or suspended.”
We agree with the district court’s finding that petitioner’s statements were not involuntary under Clewis v. State of Texas, 1967, 386 U.S. 707, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 18 L.Ed.2d 423, and related cases. Though petitioner was not told of his rights by his interlocutors, he was an experienced public official, and he had time between discussions to seek advice. He was neither maltreated nor taken into custody, and the statements were elicited not in some alien environment, but in his own office. We might also remark that the coercion petitioner alleges was to make exculpatory statements. Petitioner refused to give the written statement requested, and made clearly inculpatory statements. Although this is not basic to our decision, we find it difficult to see the causal relationship between the alleged coercion and what eventuated, or that petitioner was coerced at all. Cf. Schlinsky v. United States, 1 Cir., 1967, 379 F.2d 735, 738, cert. denied 10/23/67, 389 U.S. 920, 88 S.Ct. 236, 19 L.Ed.2d 265; Vitali v. United States, 1 Cir., 383 F.2d 121, 10/11/67.
This case is not governed by Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 1967, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562. There a public employee, a policeman, was told when questioned that if he claimed the Fifth Amendment he would be discharged, as a statute required. The Court held that this threat, to take detrimental action based solely upon the exercise of a constitutional right, was an improper way to obtain criminal evidence because it was an improper burden upon that right. In the case at bar even if we were to assume a threat, the threat to take detrimental action arose out of preexisting evidence. A threat to take legal action is not necessarily coercion. Cf. Gatterdam v. United States, 6 Cir., 1925, 5 F.2d 673, cited in Robbins v. MacKenzie, 1 Cir., 1966, 364 F.2d 45 at 50, cert. denied 385 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 215, 17 L.Ed. 2d 140. The burden was on petitioner at least to show that the proposed prosecution was improperly motivated. Cf. Dom-browski v. Pfister, 1965, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116,14 L.Ed.2d 22. For all that appears, the evidence warranted prosecution and dismissal or suspension in any event, and prosecution was bona fide intended. Petitioner was merely being given an opportunity, if he could, to clear himself. Under such circumstances his fear of prosecution and dismissal may in some measure have been responsible for what he said, but this was not unlawful coercion within the scope of Garrity.
Petitioner’s further claim that admission of evidence in the state court in cross-examination of one of his witnesses denied him due process does not warrant discussion.
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