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:
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES.
No. 12453.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 24, 1950.
Further Rehearing Denied May 23, 1950.
Earl W. Taylor, in pro. per., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., Robert B. McMillan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Walter M. Campbell, J., Atty., Office of Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion to correct and reduce his claimed illegal sentence. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issues presented have heretofore been adjudicated by this court. It appears that the only genuine issue raised on this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the indictment under which appellant was convicted and sentenced upon his plea of guilty. In Taylor v. Squier, 9 Cir., 179 F.2d 640 (rehearing denied February 9, 1950), we held that the indictment sufficiently charged a violation of 26 U.S. C. A. § 145(b).
Appellant contends that this appeal raises other and new issues which were not presented on his former appeals. Taylor here presents lengthy arguments which are a mere repetition of arguments made on previous appeals. They are entirely devoid of merit. They are neither “new” nor do they present justiciable issues.
Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
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: 1