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:
John Thomas FREEMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6776.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 30, 1962.
H. E. Hurst, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a forma pauperis appeal from a conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. At the time of trial and sentence appellant was serving a life term in the Kansas State Penitentiary for violation of that state’s habitual criminal law. The only question raised is the validity of the sentence which committed appellant to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period of 5 years, “such sentence to run consecutively to the sentence which he is now serving.” When imposing sentence the trial judge said from the bench that the 5-year sentence was “to begin at the completion of the sentence now being served in the Kansas State Penitentiary.”
Upon the trial and conviction of one already sentenced for another crime, execution of the second sentence may begin when the first terminates. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 265, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607. A sentence so providing is not void for indefiniteness or uncertainty. Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 434, 436; Wall v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 865, 867; cf. Crawford v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 290 F.2d 197. There is no uncertainty in the intent of the court to impose a 5-year sentence to begin upon release of the defendant from the state penitentiary. Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879, 880.
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: 1