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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lee MORGAN, and Peter F. Spagnuolo, Jointly & Severally, Appellants.
No. 8470.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 10,1962.
Decided Jan. 30, 1962.
Russell Hardy, Sr., Washington, D. C. (Hardy & Hardy, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.
J. Hardin Marion, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Joseph D. Ty-dings, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and PREYER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The United States through the Secretary of the Treasury and pursuant to an Act of Congress, 44 Stat. 630-635, 40 U.S.C.A. § 341 et seq., acquired certain land with buildings thereon in the District of Columbia for the erection of public buildings. While awaiting the time for the new construction and as empowered by the Act, the Administrator of General Services, who had mediately succeeded the Secretary in this duty, rented the existing buildings to Lee Morgan and Peter F. Spagnuolo, defendant-appellants, by a lease in the name of the United States. In' accordance with its terms the lease was afterwards terminated, and thereupon the Government determined that the lessees were indebted to the United States in the sum of $335.60 as the balance due for rent for the months of May and June 1955.
On July 28, 1958 the United States instituted this action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the lessees for the recovery of the $335.60. Among other defenses, the lessees pleaded the three-year limitation prescribed by the Maryland statute upon such claims. The District Court sustained the motion of the United States for summary judgment. This appeal, it is conceded, questions only the action of the District Court in overruling the plea of the statute of limitations.
The lessees insist, that in the transaction the United States was not acting in its sovereign or governmental capacity but rather in a commercial or proprietary character. The basis of this argument is that the lease permitted the lessees to sublease, and they did sublease, the buildings for private residential use. The Government thus engaged in a non-governmental activity, it is urged, and is subject to the same statutes of limitations as would a private party in similar circumstances.
With the District Judge we find no merit whatsoever in this contention. The acquisition of the land and buildings was the performance by the United States indisputably of sovereign function— the erection of buildings in which to house the activities of government. The leasing of the property, even for private residential occupancy, pending construction of the public buildings was plainly a part of the ultimate governmental purpose. It was in itself, too, the management of public property. Therefore, in suing to collect rent under the lease, the United States was still acting as the Government. While doing so it is immune from the effect of a State statute of limitation. United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940).
The General Services Administration was not leasing the property in its own name, such as a Government corporation might do, but it was acting exclusively and immediately for, as well as in the name of, the United States. Consequently, the authorities cited by the lessees relating to the status accorded Government corporations in their operations are inapposite here.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
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