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:
Francis C. PERKINS, Appellant, v. HENRY J. KAISER CONSTRUCTION CO., a corporation, Appellee.
No. 9532.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Sept. 24, 1964
Decided Dec. 10, 1964.
George A. Daugherty, Charleston, W. Ta. (Weaver & Daugherty, Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Charles W. Yeager, Charleston, W. Va. (Stanley C. Morris and Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH and BRYAN, ■Circuit Judges, and SIMONS, District •Judge.
PER CURIAM:
For personal injuries suffered in a fall •while employed in the installation of furnaces during construction of an industrial plant in West Virginia, Francis G. Perkins was awarded damages by a jury in the District Court. On motion ■of the defendant, Henry J. Kaiser Construction Company, the verdict was set •aside and judgment rendered non ob-•stante for Construction. It had not failed in any duty to Perkins, the Court ■concluded, because the defective wooden guard rail of the defendant responsible for his misfortune was used by him at the time in an unforeseeable and plainly unintended manner. Perkins appeals; ye affirm.
The evidence comprised an explanation •of the respective relationships, inter se, •of the parties and the contractors engaged in the building project, a description of the faulty timber and a retracing of the injured employee’s movements resulting in the accident. A close and graphic narrative of the facts was included by the District Judge in his letter-opinion, which we adopt for its clarity. However, we think the motion n. o. v. is to be upheld upon the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, necessarily applied with the strictness of the West Virginia doctrine, rather than upon a want of a duty resting on the defendant. Both grounds were asserted in the motion. While they are almost inextricably interwoven, the contributory negligence is the plainer premise, for the employee’s participation in his own injury is manifest from the evidence.
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