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 J. McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. MADDIGAN, Dr. Perry; Dr. Walter; Dr. Delmuro, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-3112.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 22, 1992.
Before McKAY, Chief Circuit Judge, and MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Mr. McCarthy, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens — type civil action seeking monetary damages for the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court, relying upon Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S.Ct. 1045, 62 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980), dismissed the claim without prejudice as Mr. McCarthy failed to demonstrate he had made use of the administrative review process provided by the Bureau of Prisons. We affirmed, being bound by our precedent in Brice. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir.1990).
The Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision holding that exhaustion of the Bureau of Prison’s administrative procedure is not required before a federal prisoner can initiate a Bivens action solely for monetary damages. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992).
We therefore recall our mandate and reverse the order of the district court and remand this case to the district court for such further proceedings as may be just and proper in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.
The mandate shall reissue forthwith.
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

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