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:
O’CARROLL v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD.
No. 8857.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Oct. 2, 1944.
Decided Oct. 9, 1944.
Mr. Coates Lear, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Merrill Armour, of the Bar of the State of California, of Washington, D. C., pro hac.vice, for respondent. Mr. Albert F. Grisard, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for respondent.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to review an ofder of the Civil Aeronautics Board under Section 646, 49 U.S.C. The order appealed from suspended petitioner’s commercial pilot’s certificate on the ground that he had been negligent in taking off from a commercial air field. The appeal was primarily based on two grounds : (1) That there is no substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board; and (2) that petitioner was deprived of a fair trial because the trial examiner who had made the preliminary findings gave testimony at the Board’s hearing.
As to the first point we have examined the record and find ample evidence to support the Board’s finding of negligence. In support of the second point petitioner argues that a trial examiner who has been delegated to make preliminary findings of fact is in the position of a judge, and for that reason cannot testify or participate in a proceeding to review its findings without depriving the hearing of the essential quality of due process even though the statute contains no express prohibition of such procedure. We need not decide this question because the examiner’s participation in the hearing was limited to a few remarks concerning his interpretation of one of the Board’s rules. He was cautioned by the Board that this was improper and no possible prejudice could have arisen because of this minor incident at the hearing.
The trial examiner also represented the Board in the argument before this court. While this was done with the consent of the petitioner the appearance of the trial examiner as an advocate was inconsistent with his former quasi judicial function. We do not think this should affect our decision in this case. We suggest, however, that in our opinion the Board was guilty of an impropriety in assigning an attorney to argue a case in which he had previously served as a trial examiner.
There is no merit in the other contentions of the petitioner.
The order of the Board will be
Affirmed.
49 U.S.C.A. § 646.

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: 3