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:
MACDONALD v. SCHENKEL.
No. 7732.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Oct. 7, 1941.
Decided Oct. 13, 1941.
James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
D. Edward Clarke, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued appellee, his brother-in-law, for false imprisonment. His complaint alleged that in July, 1939, he got into appellee’s car at the latter’s invitation to be taken to his home in Washington City, but instead was taken to the station house, turned over to the police, and without any charge being placed against him was confined in a cell from Saturday night until Monday. Appellee answered that on the day in question he was called by a police officer of the District of Columbia Women’s Bureau and advised that appellant’s wife (his sister) and two children had been evicted from their home for nonpayment of rent; that he went to the Bureau, saw his sister, was informed that her husband (appellant) had deserted her, and was asked by both the police and his sister to apprehend appellant in order that he should not leave the District without making provision for his family; that he thereafter located appellant, whom he found in a more or less drunken condition, and in good faith and without malice took him to the station house in order that he might be held until he was in fit condition to return to his wife and children.
The court, on motion of the plaintiff, entered judgment on the pleadings and the case was sent to a jury to assess- the amount of damages. In the ensuing trial, evidence was introduced by both parties, and the jury fixed the damages at $1. Appellant moved that the verdict be set aside as inadequate and a new trial awarded. This appeal is from the refusal of the court to grant the motion.
The single question is whether the damages awarded are obviously so inadequate as clearly to indicate that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice. The answer must be in the negative. There was no allegation of special damages. We have said many times that when a question of fact is submitted to a jury under proper instructions, as to which there is neither objection nor exception, the verdict of the jury closes the question. Here the jury heard the evidence of both sides in relation to appellant’s detention, and it thereupon became their exclusive duty to assess his damages. All the circumstances considered, we cannot say as a matter of law that there was an abuse of discretion. Columbia Aid Ass’n v. Sprague, 50 App.D.C. 307, 271 F. 381; Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App.D.C. 280, 293, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393; Ramsey v. Ross, 66 App.D.C. 186, 189, 85 F.2d 685; Schnaufer v. Price, Tex.Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 940; Salo v. Smith, 25 Cal.App. 295, 143 P. 322; Wegner v. Risch, 114 Wis. 270, 90 N.W. 168; Bergeron v. Peyton, 106 Wis. 377, 82 N.W. 291, 80 Am.St.Rep. 33; Henderson v. McReynolds, 60 Hun. 579, 14 N.Y.S. 351; Taylor v. Davis, Tex.Sup., 13 S.W. 642. Certainly, under the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying appellant’s motion. 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