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:
William R. KELLAR, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Appellee.
No. 20540.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
May 6, 1971.
William R. Kellar, pro se.
Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., and Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
This case presents us with facts and circumstances nearly identical to those we considered in Henry v. Ciecone, 440 F.2d 1052 (8th Cir. 1971). For the reasons enunciated in that case, we dismiss this appeal.
Kellar, an unconvictéd person, was assigned on April 23, 1968, to the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, for treatment until found to be mentally competent, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246. In his habeas petition, he'alleged that the Medical Center had failed to provide him with proper treatment for his “incurable” mental illness. He requested that he be released from the Medical Center and placed in a state hospital where he might receive adequate psychiatric treatment. Upon the district court’s denial of his petition, Kellar brought this in forma pauperis appeal.
Here, as in the Henry case, the record discloses that after petitioner’s habeas corpus application was denied, the Federal Medical Center determined that he had regained his competency and was capable of standing trial. On about July 15, 1970, fifteen days after the district court denied Kellar’s petition, the Medical Center recommended that Kellar be returned to his committing court. Despite this determination, however, as in Henry, petitioner was not immediately transferred to his committing court, but remained incarcerated at the Medical Center pending appeal. It was not until January 8, 1971, that the United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri filed a motion with this court requesting permission to transfer Kellar to his committing court in Indiana. Acting as promptly as possible, we granted the government’s motion shortly thereafter.
The government confesses that its delay has been “regrettable”. In the government’s brief, the United ' States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri informs us that his office has initiated procedures to avoid such delays in the future. A patient’s transfer pursuant to those procedures shall not, by the fact of the transfer alone, prejudice any appeal rights. See Fed.R.App.P. rule 23(a). We are gratified that the United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, in cooperation with the administration of the Federal Medical Center and the United States Bureau of Prisons, has responded to our admonition in Henry, that
[i]t is intolerable that one who is presumed innocent and who has been found competent to stand, trial is detained at the F.M.C. for inordinate and indefensible periods of time. [440 F.2d at 1052]
Since Kellar has been transferred to his committing court to stand trial on the charges brought against him, his appeal presents no actual issue requiring our attention.
Appeal dismissed.
. The appropriateness of the procedures are not now before us, and, therefore, we make no comment on their substance.

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