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:
Clarence C. JOHNSON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16073.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 27, 1961.
Decided May 11, 1961.
Bazelon, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Mr. Frank U. Fletcher, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gaseh, U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Chief Judge, and Bazelon and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty of housebreaking and larceny. A pretrial motion to suppress the stolen goods as evidence was denied and was not renewed during trial. Appellant did not object to the admission of the stolen goods as evidence.
The grounds now asserted for reversal are that in another and later trial Walker, the complaining witness, testified “No, sir, I never made a complaint about him [Johnson] breaking into my place,” that when he signed the complaint he signed it in blank, and that a detective “must have typed it out” after the signing. However it is admitted that all of the factual recitals describing the goods stolen, appellant’s visit to Walker’s house the night before the housebreaking and the finding of appellant’s distinctively marked wearing apparel in Walker’s house after the theft are correct. Prima facie this information could have come only from Walker. Appellant’s only contention is that Walker has now stated in another case and at a later date that he never told police that he suspected appellant of the robbery and that he never designated him as a person for whom he wanted a warrant.
After the warrant for arrest was issued, police went to appellant’s residence and upon entering found the goods which Walker had described to them as the stolen articles. Later they returned with a search warrant and seized the stolen goods which were admitted in evidence Without objection.
Appellant contends only that the complaining witness did not suspect that he [Johnson] committed the offense and did not intend to authorize an application for warrants against appellant. Insofar as the record shows, the denial of the motion to suppress by the District Court was correct, and the admission of this evidence without objection presents no ground for reversal. Wade v. United States, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 135, 259 F.2d 950.
Whether appellant can now make a showing to support a motion for a new trial on these grounds we need not decide. Our action in affirming his conviction, of course, is without prejudice to such a motion. The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. The signing of a complaint in blank with pertinent information to be written in later by police with the facts recited orally to police by the complainant is at the very least a practice so dubious that if it is ever done it ought to be terminated forthwith.
. If appellant moves for a new trial on these grounds, the District Court would then be required to determine, first, whether the proffered evidence is “newly discovered” under Eule 33, Fed.E.Crim. P. If it so qualifies, the court would then hold a hearing to decide whether the arrest warrant application was in fact and law the application of Walker. If it was not Walker’s act, the validity of the arrest and search warrants would then have to be resolved by the District Court.

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