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:
Eugene E. LE MASTERS, Appellant, v. E. H. TUCKER, Warden, West Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee.
No. 7512.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 7, 1957.
Decided Nov. 25, 1957.
Mathias J. DeVito, Baltimore, Md. (Court appointed counsel), for appellant.
Gene Hal Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., of West Virginia (William Wallace Barron, Atty Gen., of West Virginia, on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner serving sentences of imprisonment under judgments of state courts of West Virginia. The facts are fully set forth in the memorandum opinion and order of the District Judge and need not be repeated at length. The question raised by the petition is whether a court of one county of the state could impose a sentence to begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed by the court of another county. The point was presented in a petition for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which refused the writ. The point is so lacking in merit that the court below would have been justified in denying the writ in the absence of the action taken by the state court; but, in the light of that action, there can be no question as to the correctness of the court’s ruling. Brown v. Allen 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469; Goodwin v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 498. The District Judge properly denied appellant’s application for a certificate of probable cause required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253; and, in the absence of such certificate, there is nothing that we can do but dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.

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