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:
Steve SAMONAS, Plaintiff In Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 11, 1927.)
No. 3550.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Erederic P. Schoonmaker, Judge.
Thomas M. Benner and Harry A. Estep, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
‘ John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and Samuel W. Pringle, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below Steve Samonas was indicted, convicted, and sentenced on ten different counts for violation of the Narcotic Act. Thereupon he sued out this writ of error, alleging certain errors were committed by the court in the admission or rejection of evidence and in its charge to the jury. We have carefully considered the testimony bearing on the several assignments, and we are clear the rulings of the court were so entirely in accord with recognized principles of evidence that a discussion of them in a detailed opinion in this case is not warranted. As to the alleged errors in certain language of the court’s charge, it suffices to say that read, not as isolated excerpts, but in connection with the charge as a whole, the alleged error is shorn of foundation. Finding as we do that the case was tried with fairness, and every precaution taken to give the defendant the full benefit of all his rights, the judgment below is 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