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:
Robert C. KING, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18119.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 4, 1963.
Decided Jan. 2, 1964.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1964.
Certiorari Denied April 20, 1964.
See 84 S.Ct. 1195.
Mr. Paul A. Lenzini, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Martin L. Friedman, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. William H. Willcox, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker and Miss Barbara A. Lindemann, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Bastian and McGowan, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted on a two-count indictment for taking indecent liberties with a minor child. He claims several errors were committed by the trial court. Only one needs to be discussed. Appellant says the court erred in instructing in the language of the statute, telling the jury that one element of the offense was that the defendant “[took], or attempted] to take” indecent liberties. Appellant says taking and attempting to take are two separate offenses and that this should have been made clear to the jury. He cites People v. Crane. But, in the first place, no objection was made in the trial court to the instruction. And, in the second place, the penalty under the statute for an attempt is the same as that for a taking, even if the two are regarded as separate offenses. The sentence given appellant was well within the statutory prescription. Thus no substantial right seems to have been affected in any realistic sense, even if the instruction was erroneous. In the third place, the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming.
Affirmed.
. 62 Stat. 347 (1948), D.C.Code, § 22-3501 (a) (1961 ed.).
. 302 Ill. 217, 134 N.E. 99 (1922).
. McQuaid v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 193 F.2d 696 (D.C.Cir. 1951).

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