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:
Francis D. HOUSTON, Appellant, v. Norman P. MASON, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, et al., Appellees.
No. 14453.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 6, 1959.
Decided May 8, 1959.
Mr. A. J. Spero, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Jack Marshall Stark, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before Fahy, Danaher and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a Veterans Preference Eligible, was removed from his position as an appraiser in the Honolulu office of the Federal Housing Administration. The charges were specific and completely adequate to apprise the appellant of the nature of the proposed action. He made reply to the agency. In due course he waived a hearing. His separation from employment was affirmed by the Twelfth Civil Service Region and by the Board of Appeals and Review of the United States Civil Service Commission.
In his action in the District Court challenging his removal and demanding reinstatement and other relief, summary judgment was entered for the appellees. It is clear that appellant feels that he was ill advised in waiving a hearing. There is nothing to suggest that he had in anywise been overreached, or that there has been a denial of such procedural benefits as appellant might have been entitled to receive. Cf. Hargett v. Summerfield, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, certiorari denied, 1957, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137; Wagner v. Higley, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 235 F.2d 518, certiorari denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 936, 77 S.Ct. 230, 1 L.Ed.2d 165.
Affirmed.
. The record is not sufficiently dear to predude a decision on the merits. Thus, we do not here dismiss.

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