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:
Douglas BENDER, by his Guardian, Mrs. Kenneth H. Nichol, Appellant, v. WALLACE-MURRAY COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 20075.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 1970.
Charles Rick Johnson, Gregory, S. D., for appellant; John J. Simpson, Winner, S. D., on the brief.
Gale E. Fisher, Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellee.
Before GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from a suit against the defendant Wallaee-Murray Company on its alleged negligence in its manufacturing and distribution of a vent system installed for a furnace in a farm home near Gregory, South Dakota. A verdict was returned for the defendant and plaintiff appeals. The plaintiff originally sued the Wallaee-Murray Company, the estate of the deceased owner of the premises, and the installer of the ventilation system as joint tort-feasors. At the beginning of the trial plaintiff settled with the latter two defendants and executed releases under the South Dakota Uniform Contribution Among Tort-feasors Act.
The question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the issue of liability before them concerned only the defendant WallaeeMurray since the plaintiff had settled with the other alleged tort-feasors.
Objection is raised that the court misapplied the South Dakota Uniform Contribution Among Tort-feasors Act governing releases and settlements with multiple tort-feasors. Plaintiff’s exception to the court’s instructions focused on the right of contribution among the tort-feasors. Plaintiff urged that the jury be allowed to pass on the liability of the two absent defendants because it might affect the pro rata contribution to the overall judgment by the remaining defendant. In other words, if one of the parties released were found not to be a tort-feasor, then the remaining defendant would be liable to pay one-half of the judgment rather than one-third.
The difficulty with plaintiff’s objection to the instructions as related to the issue on appeal is that the jury found for the defendant on the issue of liability. There exists no issue of damages before us. It would be patently incorrect for this court to render an advisory opinion on the application of the South Dakota statute as to the pro rata handling of damages. Plaintiff urges, however, that the court’s instructions prevented him in some way from presenting the “whole spectrum of responsibility of the various defendants to the jury.” This was not the basis for exception to the court’s charge as required under Fed.R. Civ.P. 51. Furthermore, plaintiff concedes that no evidence was excluded by the court. Plaintiff further agrees that the issues of “proximate cause” and “concurrent negligence” were fully argued to the jury. We find no error in the verdict and judgment rendered for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
. Plaintiff’s counsel urged at trial that “a pro rata reduction in any event will not and cannot be ordered if a party to a settlement was not in fact a tortfeasor.”

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