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:
UNITED STATES of America, and Frank Camp, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees, v. John L. COTTON, Appellant.
No. 77-2042.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 1977.
Lawrence A. Bobbitt, III, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Charles E. Graves, U. S. Atty. and Toshiro Suyematsu, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo., with him on the brief), for appellees.
John L. Cotton, pro se.
Before McWILLIAMS, BREITENSTEIN and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-respondent Cotton is a tax protestor who refused to comply with a court order enforcing an Internal Revenue Service Summons. Jurisdiction lies under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). Appellant was found in civil contempt and sentenced to a 40-day jail term with provision that he could purge himself of the contempt by obedience to the summons. We have expedited the appeal, reviewed the complete record, and considered the brief and oral argument of respondent who appeared pro se.
The facts are substantially the same as those considered in United States v. Carroll, 10 Cir., 567 F.2d 958, opinion filed this day. Our discussion in Carroll of the claims of rights and privileges under the federal Constitution applies here and need not be repeated. It suffices to say that respondent has been denied no constitutional right or privilege. Our Carroll opinion is also dis-positive of all other issues raised by respondent except two.
Respondent claims that production of the required records would violate the marital privilege which precludes one spouse from becoming an adverse witness against the other. Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 75, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125. The wife did not raise the issue of privilege. There is no showing that any of the records were a communication between husband and wife or were confidential as between them within the protection of the marital privilege. United States v. Ashby, 5 Cir., 245 F.2d 684, 686. We have held that the production of the records, in the circumstances presented, violated no constitutional rights of the husband. By the same reasoning the wife could not claim self-incrimination. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Susan Rovner, Witness, E.D.Pa., 377 F.Supp. 954, 955; affirmed, 3 Cir., 500 F.2d 1400, cert. denied 419 U.S. 1106, 95 S.Ct. 776, 42 L.Ed.2d 802. The claim of marital privilege has no validity.
Respondent sought to disqualify Judge Brimmer and complains of Judge Brimmer’s actions at the trial. Respondent made no effort to comply with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §,§ 144 and 455 pertaining to the disqualification of a judge. The record shows that Judge Brimmer conducted all hearings of the matter with fairness, impartiality, patience, and restraint.
Affirmed.

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