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:
SMITH et al. v. CLEVELAND PNEUMATIC TOOL CO.
No. 10708.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 22, 1949.
Arnold M. Edelman, of Cleveland, Ohio (Howell Leuck and D. J. Lazear, both of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
John J. Reidy, of Cleveland, Ohio (Fals-graf, Reidy & Pangrace and John J. Reidy, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants brought this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219, prior to the enactment of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq, on behalf of themselves and approximately 6,000 other employees of the appellee to recover unpaid compensation and liquidated damages in the total amount of $10,000,000. Appellants claimed compensation for unpaid working time of 40 minutes per day consisting of waiting periods during which they were required to be present and available for work, and resulting from the failure on the part of appellee to provide adequate facilities regulating the commencement and termination of a day’s work. They also claimed compensation for unpaid working time resulting from a rule of the appellee under which any employee who reported for work three or more minutes late was required to work fifteen minutes, without being paid therefor.
On August 22, 1947, following enactment of the Portal-to-Portal Act on May 14, 1947, the appellee moved the Court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction. On November 10, 1947, the appellants moved for leave to file a second amended and supplemental complaint, which alleged that they were entitled to be paid for the 40 minutes per day periods referred to “because of an express provision of a contract in effect at the time between them as employees, thru the collective bargaining representatives, and the defendant.” On March 31, 1948, the District Court denied appellants’ motion to file the second amended and supplemental complaint and sustained appellee’s motion to dismiss the action. This appeal followed.
The District Court’s order was made prior to our decision, but in accordance with the ruling therein, in Fisch v. General Motors Corporation, 6 Cir., 169 F.2d 266, in which the Portal-to-Portal Act was discussed and -its constitutionality upheld. We agree with the additional ruling of the District Judge, for the reasons indicated by him in his memorandum opinion, that the Portal-to-Portal Act is applicable to the 40-minute periods of time referred to, and that the filing of the second amended and supplemental complaint was not authorized.
The opinion of the District Judge did not discuss the 15-minute periods of time above referred to. We are of the opinion that they are not covered by the provisions of the Portal-to-Portal Act in that it was part of the regular working time covered by the contract of employment during which appellants performed the usual and routine duties of their respective jobs. However, the amount of such unpaid working time is not disclosed by the complaint, but is merely included generally, in addition to the 40-minute periods,'as a part of the total unpaid working time for which the recovery is sought. Obviously, it was not a daily occurrence for any particular employee. It was offset to some extent, if not entirely, by the instances in which the employee was paid for the full quarter hour, although starting work late, but before the 3-minute period elapsed. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the de minimis rule is applicable. Frank v. Wilson & Co., 7 Cir., 172 F.2d 712. See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 LEd. 1515.
The judgment of the District Court 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: 0