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:
Edgar Lee SHOBE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15160.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 5, 1955.
Edgar Lee Shobe, pro se.
Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., and William O. Russell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and VOGEL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court entered June 22, 1954, denying a motion of Edgar Lee Shobe under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., to vacate a sentence of five years imprisonment imposed upon him by that court on September 4, 1953. The sentence was based upon Shobe’s conviction by a jury under an indictment charging him and others, under Section 371, Title 18 U.S.C., with having conspired to steal letters containing United States Treasury checks from the mail, to forge endorsement on the checks, and to utter the forged checks as genuine, with intent to defraud the United States.
Shobe and several of his co-defendants, who were convicted by the jury and sentenced by the court, filed on September 9, 1953, a motion for a new trial because of errors of law allegedly committed by the court during the trial. The motion was denied. No appeal was taken by Shobe from his sentence. On November 18, 1953, he filed a motion under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., to vacate the sentence upon grounds which challenged the adequacy of the evidentiary basis for the verdict and judgment, and certain rulings of the District Court during the proceedings culminating in the sentence complained of.
On January 23, 1954, the court denied Shobe’s motion of November 18, 1953, pointing out that Section 2255 was not a substitute for an appeal, and that the grounds stated in Shobe’s motion raised questions reviewable only on appeal.
On April 30, 1954, Shobe filed another motion to vacate sentence, again asserting errors which would be reviewable only on an appeal from the judgment and sentence. The District Court denied the motion of April 30, 1954, upon the grounds: (1) that the questions Shobe sought to raise were not reviewable on a motion to vacate sentence under Section 2255, and that the record conclusively showed that he was entitled to no relief under his motion; and (2) that having theretofore ruled upon a similar motion based on substantially similar grounds, the court was not required to entertain the motion of April 30, 1954.
It is only where a sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack that Section 2255 affords a remedy, and a motion under that Section cannot function as an appeal. Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194; Dennis v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195; United States v. Jonikas, 7 Cir., 197 F.2d 675, 676; United States v. Rutkin, 3 Cir., 212 F.2d 641, 643; Pelley v. United States, 7 Cir., 214 F.2d 597, 598. The questions raised by Shobe’s motions were questions reviewable only on appeal.
Moreover, the District Court was entirely justified in denying Shobe’s second motion on the ground that it was a “second or successive motion for similar relief” which Section 2255 expressly provides the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain. Moss v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 438; Hallowell v. United States, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 926; Johnson v. United States, 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 492, 494.
The order appealed from 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