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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Patrick BROUILLET, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Patrick BROUILLET, Defendant, Colonial Bonding Agency, Inc. and Heritage Insurance Company of North America, Inc., Appellants.
Nos. 82-2567, 82-2586.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 14, 1984.
Jerry Day of Shdeed & Hartmann, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant.
William S. Price, U.S. Atty., and Frank Michael Ringer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and HOLLOWAY, McWilliams, barrett, doyle, McKAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
Ernest Brouillet, the Colonial Bonding Agency, Inc., and the Heritage Insurance Company petition this court to reconsider en banc the order of a three-judge panel which dismissed the parties’ appeal for failure to file a timely notice. The appeal arose from a district court order denying motions to set aside the forfeiture of a criminal bail bond. In its order, the panel followed established precedent in this circuit holding that an appeal by a surety from a judgment on the forfeiture of a bail bond is a criminal matter, and that notice of appeal must therefore be filed within the ten day period prescribed for criminal cases by Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). See United States v. Jones, 567 F.2d 965, 966 (10th Cir.1977). Both appeals were untimely under this standard.
Brouillet was indicted on various drug charges and subsequently failed to appear for trial. The Government moved for forfeiture of his appearance bond, which the court granted. Brouillet then pled guilty and filed a petition for remission of the forfeiture judgment. A like motion was filed on behalf of the surety. The district court found no basis to remit the forfeiture of the bond and denied the motions. On November 16, 1982, the court denied timely filed motions for reconsideration. Brouillet filed his notice of appeal on December 14, and the surety filed its notice on December 16.
As these facts indicate, Brouillet and his surety filed their notices of appeal outside the ten day period provided for criminal cases in Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), but within the sixty day period provided in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) for civil cases in which the United States is a party. Thus, the timeliness of this appeal turns on whether we characterize the appeal as criminal or civil in nature.
In Jones, we held that an appeal from a judgment on the forfeiture of a bail bond is a criminal matter. We reasoned that all provisions for release from custody on bail, including those providing for forfeiture and judgment of default against the obligors on the bond, are set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and in the Criminal Code. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 46; 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (1982); Jones, 567 F.2d at 966-67. We further noted that Fed.R.Crim.P. 54 excepts certain proceedings from the rules of criminal procedure and that nothing in that rule “expresses an intent to exclude criminal bail bond forfeitures from the coverage of the criminal rules ____ As a general principle of statutory construction, if a statute specifies one exception to the general application, other exceptions are excluded____” Id. at 967.
Subsequent to Jones, four other circuits have faced this question, and they have uniformly adopted the opposite view. See United States v. Roher, 706 F.2d 725, 726 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Jackson, 691 F.2d 478, 479 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Martinez, 613 F.2d 473, 482 n. 30 (3rd Cir.1980); United States v. Plechner, 577 F.2d 596, 597-98 (9th Cir.1978). These circuits view a motion relating to the forfeiture of a bail bond as essentially a civil proceeding arising from a criminal one, similar to an action to collect a criminal fine. Martinez, 613 F.2d at 482 n. 30; Plechner, 577 F.2d at 597. “A bail bond is a contract between the government and the defendant and his surety ____ Upon forfeiture, the surety becomes the government’s debtor ____ Thus, the government’s motion for judgment [is] ‘civil, not criminal, in nature.’ ” Id. at 598. See also Roher, 706 F.2d at 726. In addition, these cases view the civil rule as “fairer to those adversely affected by a bond forfeiture.” Plechner, 577 F.2d at 598; Roher, 706 F.2d at 726.
We find the reasoning of these other courts persuasive. Accordingly, we have decided to disavow our earlier decision in Jones and to follow the current trend in the other circuits. We hold that the time for appeal from an order relating to the forfeiture of a criminal bail bond is governed by the rules for appeals from a civil case.
The appeals are reinstated.

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