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:
Maitland E. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 23858.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 1967.
Jack Bryant, Abilene, Tex., for appellant.
William O. Callaway, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying petitioner relief on his § 2255 motion seeking to vacate and correct sentences imposed upon him in the United States District Court on June 12, 1959. This is the seventh post-conviction motion filed by petitioner. All previous motions were unsuccessful, the fourth being ruled upon by this Court. Brown v. United States, 5th Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 404.
The only issue presented by this appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that the pronouncement of sentence in open court by the original trial court was sufficient to effectuate the court’s intent to make the sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently. At the original trial, petitioner pled guilty to three separate charges: (1) A two-count indictment charging forgery of postal money orders in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500; (b) a one-count indictment charging bail jumping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146; and (c) an information charging the interstate transportation of an altered American Express money order in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. At the time of sentencing, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: Well, I am going to have to impose a sentence here to prevent you from forging, altering checks; so in Cause No. 2012, which is the case for two counts of falsely and fraudulently counterfeiting postal money orders, I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General for five years, on both counts generally. In Cause No. 2009, bail jumping, I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General for one year, and in Cause No. 2010, charging the violation of transportation in interstate commerce of an altered American Express Company Money Order, I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General for six years.
MR. BINION [the prosecuting attorney] : Your Honor, may I inquire about the sentences as to—
THE COURT: He is sentenced independently, separately, and to be served consecutively.
Petitioner has had the benefit of able and experienced court-appointed counsel, and his case has been advanced with unusual diligence and vigor. Despite the commendable efforts of counsel, however, we feel that disposition of the appeal in a manner contrary to petitioner’s position is clearly dictated by this Court’s opinion in Henley v. Heritage, 5th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 847. Dealing there with a factual situation substantially identical to thát at bar, this Court concluded:
* * * that the clear meaning of the [court’s oral pronouncement of sentence] * * * is that the sequence of sentences is to follow the order in which the sentences were announced, and that consequently, the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
337 F.2d at 848. Clearly this language, and the entire reasoning of the Henley case, applies equally well in the instant controversy. The sentencing pronouneement clearly reveals the trial court’s intent that the three sentences were to run consecutively in the order announced; and, in light of the holding in Henley, it was legally sufficient to implement that intent. The judgment of the district court denying petitioner’s motion is therefore affirmed.
. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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