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:
SWIFT v. MOBLEY, State Superintendent of Banks, et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 23, 1928.
No. 5411.
Stephen C. Upson, of Athens, Ga., and Raymond Stapleton, of Elberton, Ga. (Ma-thilde Lumpkin Upson, of Athens, Ga., on the brief), for appellant.
William L. Erwin, of Athens, Ga. (Erwin, Erwin & Nix, of Athens, Ga., and Z. B. Rogers, of Elberton, Ga., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and POSTER, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari denied 49 S. Ct. —, 73 L. Ed. —.
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Thomas M. Swift, Jr., from an order adjudging him an involuntary bankrupt. The acts of bankruptcy alleged, and proved without controversy, were that Swift, within four months prior to the filing by the creditors of their petition, had transferred his property .to his wife and his father with intent to create a preference in their favor, and to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. The. only defense to the petition was that Swift was either a wage-earner or chiefly engaged in farming or tillage of the soil, and therefore was exempt under section 4b of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA § 22(b), from being adjudged an involuntary bankrupt.
The principal creditor was the Elberton Loan & Savings Bank, which held notes signed or indorsed by Swift during the years 1923 to 1925, while he was engaged in the mercantile business at Elberton, Ga. Prom September, 1925, until February, 1927, Swift was employed on a salary, first with the Nun-nally Company of Atlanta, and then as bookkeeper for the Elberton Cotton Mill. On February 6,1927, he gave up his employment with the cotton mill on account of his eyes. Thereafter, until the petition in bankruptcy ivas filed against him, he lived at his home, about 2 miles from Elberton. This home consisted of a tract of 30 acres, only 12 or 15 acres of which were cleared for cultivation. Swift claims that in March of 1927 he reserved 4 or 5 acres on which to raise chickens. The remainder he let to a tenant, to- be planted in cotton and corn, reserving as rent one-fourth of the cotton and one-fourth of the com, out of which he received $35 for the cotton and one-fourth of about 30 bushels of com. He had 25 or 30 chickens, and in April got 280 more from an incubator. In May 230 of the chickens were lost in a fire. The transfers to his wife and father, which are attacked as preferential and fraudulént, were'made on April 8, 1927, and the petition in bankruptcy was filed on May 11, 1927.
Appellant was not exempt as a wage-earner. He was in the nonexempt class of merchants when the debts were incurred, and had ceased to be exempt before the acts of bankruptcy were committed. The evidence shows quite conclusively that appellant, after he ceased his work as bookkeeper and until the acts of bankruptcy were committed, was not actively engaged in any occupation. The raising of chickens about his home place was on too small a scale to constitute an occupation or means of living, as was also the farming by his tenant. The evidence does not support the conclusion that he was engaged chiefly in farming or tillage of the soil. As appellant was neither a wage-earner nor a farmer at the time the acts of bankruptcy were committed, it becomes unnecessary to decide the question, raised in argument by appellees, whether he should be adjudged, an involuntary bankrupt on the ground that he was engaged in a nonexempt occupation as of the date when his debts were contracted.
The order appealed from is 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: 5