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:
Adrian JOHNSON, Appellant, v. O. B. ELLIS, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 19058.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1961.
Bernard A. Golding, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., Lee P. Ward, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner-appellant was convicted of murder in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, and sentenced to death. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Johnson v. State, 1960, 336 S.W.2d 175. Certiorari was denied, with Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting. Johnson v. Texas, 1960, 364 U.S. 927, 81 S.Ct. 355, 5 L.Ed.2d 267. In the petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, it is alleged:
“Petitioner’s judgment and sentence to death violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States on at least three specific grounds:
“(a) It is based on a coerced and forced confession obtained from Petitioner by a group of Police officers and other law enforcement agents after protracted questioning, during which time he was denied counsel, access to family and friends, was not advised of his rights and was detained without any authority, contrary to the spirit and requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment;
“(b) that he was sentenced to his doom solely on the basis of a ‘confession’ obtained by threats, force, coercion and subtle illegal practices, while illegally restrained, contrary to the spirit and requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment;
“(c) Petitioner was denied the statutory right to testify in open Court that during the period he was incarcerated in the Harris County jail and while indicted as a party to the commission of this offense, he was removed from said County Jail to a distant area and building occupied by the Texas Rangers, for the avowed purpose of procuring from him another ‘confession’; and
“(d) that the trial court permitted the introduction by the State against him, the issue of a collateral crime, not embraced in the indictment, over his objections.”
Substantially these same grounds of attack upon the conviction and sentence had been ruled adversely to the petitioner by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. While the federal district court found no “vital flaw” in the State proceedings it nonetheless chose “to air this matter fully” “in view of petitioner’s youth, the serious charges made by petitioner, and the crucial fact that the punishment is death.” After a full hearing and a thorough examination of petitioner’s trial in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, the district court found that the petitioner’s constitutional rights have been in no way violated and denied his petition for habeas corpus. For a more detailed statement of the facts, we refer to the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, supra, and to the opinion- of the District Court reported as Johnson v. Ellis, 1961, 194 F.Supp. 258.
The findings of fact by the district court came to this Court buttressed by the “clearly erroneous” Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Rushing v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 633, 638. After careful consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, and a reading of the transcript of evidence, including the evidence in petitioner’s criminal trial, we find no valid criticism of the district court’s findings of fact. We agree with its conclusions of law, and think that this case is clearly distinguishable from Reck v. Pate, Warden, 1961, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948, unless the separate concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in that case should be followed. For the reasons well stated in the excellent opinion of Judge Ingraham, the judgment of the district court 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