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 second 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:
James X. LONG, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. C. E. HARRIS, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Nos. 72-1021 to 72-1023.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 14, 1973.
Robert E. Davis, Leavenworth, Kan., for petitioners-appellants.
Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for respondents-appellees.
Before SETH, McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon docketing in this court, this case was assigned to the summary calendar. Thereafter, an attorney who participated in the four day evidentiary hearing conducted in the district court was appointed to assist the appellants. A transcript of the evidentiary hearing where the appellants all testified and were afforded complete opportunity to support their claims was obtained, and the appointed attorney thereafter submitted a memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance addressing the underlying merits.
We have now carefully and thoroughly reviewed the complete record on appeal, including the transcript, and the memorandum in opposition to summary af-firmance. We are convinced that the findings made by the district court at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, reported at 332 F.Supp. 262 (D.C.Kan.1971).
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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