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:
Norman Lee PLEDGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13593.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1958.
A. Lawrence Sherman, Lexington, Ky., for appellant.
Henry J. Cook and Marvin D. Jones, Lexington, Ky., for appellee.
Before MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed this habeas corpus proceeding in the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky alleging that he was being illegally held and detained against his will in the United States Public Health Service Hospital at Lexington, Kentucky. He challenged the validity of the judgment under which he was being held in confinement on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty, entrapment by federal officers, and that he was mentally incompetent at the time of trial.
The District Judge sustained the Government’s motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the case and entered an order to that effect on August 2, 1957. Appellant wrote a letter to the District Judge, dated October 13, 1957, which the Court treated as a motion for rehearing, which motion it overruled by order of October 16, 1957.
By letter of April 28, 1958, the appellant sought a rehearing of the ruling of October 16, 1957, which application was denied by order of May 1, 1958. Notice of appeal dated May 5, 1958, was filed on May 7, 1958.
It appearing to the Court that the appeal was not timely, Sec. 2107, Title 28 U.S. Code; Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834; Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers of America, 6 Cir., 195 F.2d 612; Morley v. United States, 6 Cir., 207 F.2d 654.
It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby 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