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, Appellee, v. Sinclair D. SMALL, Appellant.
No. 383, Docket 31069.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 1967.
Decided April 14, 1967.
Herbert S. Siegal, New York City, for appellant.
John R. Bartels, Jr., Asst. U. S., Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City, John A. Stichter, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MOORE and HAYS, Circuit Judges, DOOLING, District Judge.
Sitting by designation, from the Eastern District of New York.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted on two counts of receiving and concealing narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 173 and 174. At trial, narcotics seized at the time of his arrest, and narcotics seized shortly thereafter from his apartment pursuant to a warrant were received in evidence against him.
Upon a pretrial motion, appellant sought to suppress the narcotics. After a hearing, the motion was denied. Appellant claims on appeal that it was error to deny his motion because: (1) the search warrant for his apartment was based on a false affidavit and hence invalid; and (2) there was no probable cause for the arrest.
These claims grow out of a single alleged inconsistency in the testimony of agent Antonelli at the suppression hearing. Antonelli testified that he was first alerted to the activities of appellant by an informant who, in late July of 1965, told Antonelli, among other things, the make, model and license number of appellant’s car. Antonelli also testified that he confirmed that information through the New York State Bureau of Motor Vehicles in early August, 1965. On cross examination, it was revealed through an exhibit that the permanent registration for the car bearing that license number was not issued until September 3, 1965.
The search warrant was issued on the affidavit of agent Antonelli, alleging information received: (1) by personal observation; (2) from an informant in November of 1965 (a different informant from the July informant); (3) from the records of Consolidated Edison; and (4) from the files of the F.B.I.
The testimony of agent Antonelli at the suppression hearing established that he personally had observed appellant intermittently during the months of August, September, October, November and December of 1965. The observed activities together with the information received (and subsequently corroborated) from the November informant established probable cause for the arrest.
It is apparent that the alleged inconsistency described above could undermine the warrant and the arrest only by rendering Antonelli totally unbelievable as an affiant and a witness.
Antonelli’s credibility was a question for the judges below who observed his testimony. We refuse to say that a single apparent inconsistency will render everything that a witness says unbelievable as a matter of law.
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