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:
Stanwood A. DEMERS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Edwin C. BROWN et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 6456.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
April 9, 1965.
Stanwood A. Demers, pro se.
Joseph L. Breen, Chief Special Counsel, with whom J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen. of Rhode Island, was on brief, for appellees.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and MARIS and BURGER,* Circuit Judges.
Sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
This case, in which plaintiff sought to enjoin certain action by the Rhode Island State Board of Education, was dismissed on defendants’ motion on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. Final judgment was entered October 13, 1964. Having failed to appeal from that judgment, in December the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate. Concededly he had had more than 30 days’ notice of the judgment. When the motion to vacate came on for hearing the court stated that it was without power to grant it. This was so since there were no new reasons to set aside the judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 60(b). From an order denying the motion, plaintiff appeals.
It must be perfectly apparent that plaintiff is seeking to appeal from the original judgment by indirection after the time has expired. What he cannot do directly he cannot do indirectly. Perrin v. Aluminum Co. of America, 9 Cir. 1952, 197 F.2d 254.
Plaintiff filed an additional motion requesting a hearing by a three-judge court of his original complaint. The district court expressly stated that it was not passing on this motion, and in fact, no order appears to have been made. If it could be assumed that the district court also denied this so-called alternate motion, and that the plaintiff took a valid appeal therefrom, nevertheless there could be no merit to the appeal because this motion, again, specifically sought to open a complaint that had been finally disposed of.
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