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 K. RIFFLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 19540.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
March 9, 1962.
John K. Riffle, pro se.
E. Coleman Madsen, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged, by an information filed in the Northern District of Ohio, with interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. In the Southern District of Florida, he executed a waiver of counsel, a waiver of indictment, a consent to the transfer of the cause, and a plea of guilty. He was given a five-year sentence.
The appellant wrote a letter to the district judge by whom sentence was imposed saying that on the day he appeared in court he had been out of the hospital for only two days and was under the influence of drugs, and had been promised a sentence by a Federal agent and a United States Marshal of one or two years. By the letter the appellant requested he be returned to Ohio for trial. The district court treated the letter as a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and denied it. We think the letter should have been treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and that, as such, it should have been granted. Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835; Gregori v. United States, 5th Cir. 1957, 243 F.2d 48; Alexander v. United States, 5th Cir. 1961, 290 F.2d 252; Praylow v. United States, 5th Cir. 1962, 298 F.2d 792.
The letter of the appellant to one of the judges of this Court will be treated as a notice of appeal and as an application to appeal in forma pauperis. Such application is granted, and the appeal decided upon the district court record. The order of the district court is vacated and set aside, and the cause is remanded for a hearing upon the mental capacity of the appellant at the time the court accepted his waivers, consent and plea.
Reversed and remanded.

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