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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen J. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-5175.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 18, 1978.
Thomas E. Jackson, Kenneth R. Sasse and Stephen Gleit, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Ellen Ritteman, F. William Soisson, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
On receipt and consideration of an appeal in the above-styled case; and
Noting that appellant was convicted after jury trial on two counts of passing counterfeit notes and one count of possession of counterfeit notes, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (1970); and
Further noting that the only appellate issue presented is appellant’s claim that “the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that defendant’s prior convictions of carrying a concealed weapon and attempted armed robbery would be admissible at trial”; and
Having determined from the record that the District Judge considered the question of cross-examination on prior crimes and ruled in advance that the testimony concerning one offense would not be admissible but that testimony pertaining to two felony convictions (which permitted sentences in excess of one year) would be admissible if defendant took the stand; and
Noting further from the record that appellant in fact did not take the stand, but nonetheless contends prejudicial error in said pretrial ruling by the Judge in influencing his decision not to take the stand; and
Further noting that Rule 609(a) provides as follows:
(a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
Fed.R.Evid. 609(a).
And further noting that the District Judge in his pretrial ruling clearly exercised his discretion, as called for by Rule 609 by holding that a conviction for the sale of marijuana could not be admitted or allowed to be made a subject of cross-examination if defendant took the stand; and
Further finding no abuse of that discretion in ruling that the two felonies of carrying a concealed weapon and attempted robbery armed could be the subject of cross-examination,
Now, therefore, the judgment of conviction 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