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:
Don B. COOK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 21702.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 15, 1965.
Don B. Cook, pro se.
William Wayne Justice, U. S. Atty., E. D. of Texas, Tyler, Tex., H. D. Nicholson, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before MARIS, RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a denial of the appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence, which was filed in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court granted a hearing at which the movant was produced and testified.
On May 22,1962, the movant was found guilty of entering a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with intent to commit larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113. The district court sentenced the movant to the custody of the Attorney General for five years, the sentence to start when he completed serving a previous state sentence. The judgment was affirmed by this Court. Cook v. United States, 5 Cir., 320 F.2d 258. The movant did not finish serving the previous state sentence until October 10, 1963, and he was delivered to the-federal penitentiary at Leavenworth on October 24, 1963.
In his motion he contended: (1) that-the commitment was void because issued the same day that the sentence was imposed ; (2) that because of frustration by the United States Marshal for the Southern District of Texas, he was denied substantial rights and “due process” “and equal protection of the law” as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; and (3) that legal papers were withheld from him for a period of forty days while he was in the admission-orientation unit of the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court, 237 F.Supp. 830, which carefully answered each of the movant’s contentions, the judgment 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: 1