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 second 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:
H. A. HURLEY and H. A. and Opal Hurley, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 12536.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 9, 1956.
Percy C. Young, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioners.
H. Brian Holland, Ellis N. Slack, S. Dee Hanson, and R. P. Hertzog, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This petition for review of the decisions of the Tax Court of the United States, brought to us by the taxpayer, H. A. Hurley, a dealer in tractors and farm implements and a farmer, and by his wife, Opal Hurley, has been heard and considered upon the oral arguments and printed briefs of the respective attorneys for the petitioner and respondent and upon the entire record in the case:
From which it appears that the findings of fact of the Tax Court are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, and that the opinion of the United States Tax Judge, which was reviewed by the Tax Court, demonstrates that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was justified in the circumstances of the case in resorting to the net-worth method of determining income taxes;
That the revised net-worth statement was prepared from the books of the company, as corrected; and includes, moreover, amounts representing assets and liabilities not appearing on the taxpayer’s books; that the figures obtained from such books and records made a sufficient showing of the value of the assets to shift to the petitioners the burden of going forward with the evidence;
That the books and records kept by the petitioner for the company were inadequate to reflect his income; and that, except for the years 1948 and 1949, petitioner’s farming activities were not reported in his returns;
That numerous sales of automobiles and trucks were made without reflecting such transactions on his books of account ;
That a bank account was carried in petitioner’s name and used for dealings of the company without being reflected on the books maintained for the compar ny’s operation; and that the inadequacy of the books of the company for computation of income tax was shown by the efforts of accountants' to adjust them for an adequate reflection of income:
For all of which reasons, the decisions of the tax court holding deficiencies in income taxes in the respective amounts found for the years in controversy are affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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