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:
Ruth H. NORDMEYER, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph A. Nordmeyer, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles SANZONE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15020.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 16, 1963.
A. J. Jolly, Bassmann, Kaufmann, Root & Jolly, Newport, Ky., for appellant.
Robert C. Cetrulo, O’Hara & Ruberg, Covington, Ky., for appellee.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, and MILLER and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, as Administratrix of the estate of Joseph A. Nordmeyer, deceased, recovered a judgment in the District Court against the defendant, Charles Sanzone, in the amount of $45,000.00 for damages by reason of the death of her husband arising out of an automobile accident alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile. In taking his appeal, the appellant executed a super-sedeas bond. The judgment was affirmed by this Court. 6 Cir., 314 F.2d 202.
The plaintiff-appellee has filed a motion in this Court to assess an additional 10% of the amount of the judgment as damages for the delay caused by the appeal, which it is claimed was without merit and was taken merely for delay.
In support of her motion, appellee relies first upon Rule 25(2), Rules of this Court, which provides:
“Damages for Delay. In any case where an appeal has delayed proceedings on a judgment appealed from, and shall appear to have been taken merely for delay, damages not exceeding 10 per cent of the amount of the judgment in addition to interest may be awarded and added to the judgment.”
Under this rule, the award of damages where an appeal has delayed proceedings on a judgment appealed from is discre-' tionary with the Court. The rule provides that damages “may be awarded” and added to the judgment. The amount of any such award is not 10% of the judgment, but damages “not exceeding 10% of the amount of the judgment.” In our opinion, the appeal in this case was not so lacking in merit as to justify an award of damages under this rule.
In support of the motion, appellee also relies upon Section 21.130 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, which provides as follows:
“Damages upon affirmance. Upon the affirmance of an appeal, or the dismissal of an appeal after it has been docketed in the Court of Appeals, where the appeal is from a judgment for the payment of money, the collection of which, in whole or in part, has been superseded, as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, ten percent damages on the amount superseded shall be awarded against the appellant.”
Appellee points out that under the Kentucky statute the award of 10% damages where a judgment for the payment of money has been superseded and affirmed on appeal is fixed in amount, and mandatory. She contends that since jurisdiction in this case is based upon diversity of citizenship, we are required to follow the Kentucky statute under the ruling in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188.
However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have their own provisions providing for a stay upon appeal and the execution of a supersedeas bond. Rules 62(d) and 73(d), Rules of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have the force and effect of a federal statute. American Federation of Musicians v. Stein, 213 F.2d 679, 686, C.A.6th; Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass, 195 F.2d 267, 272, 38 A.L.R.2d 356, C.A.3rd; Win-sor v. Daumit, 179 F.2d 475, 477, C.A.7th. Rule 73(d), Rules of Civil Procedure, differs somewhat from the provisions of the Kentucky statute and insofar as it deals with a question of procedure it is controlling over the provisions of a state statute which is in conflict therewith. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 13, 61 S.Ct. 422, 85 L.Ed. 479; Williams v. Powers, 135 F.2d 153, 156, C.A.6th.
We are of the opinion that Rule 73(d) providing for the award of damages for delay upon the affirmance of a money judgment is a matter of procedure rather than a question of substantive law. In Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 231-232, 2 S.Ct. 443, 451, 27 L.Ed. 506, the Supreme Court said that the term “procedure” is a broad one and includes in its meaning whatever is embraced by the three technical terms, Pleading, Evidence, and Practice. In defining Practice, the Court said the word “means those legal rules which direct the course of proceeding to bring parties into the court and the course of the court after they are brought in:” This definition was restated in Kellman v. Stoltz, 1 F.R.D. 726, 728, N.D.Iowa, where the District Judge pointed out that the term “procedure” includes more than pleading, in that it includes all rules and forms which govern the parties, their counsel and the Court throughout the progress of the case from the time of its initiation until final judgment and its execution. The damages which appellee now seeks to recover in addition to the amount of the judgment were not a part of her cause of action and only arise as an incident of certain procedural steps taken by the appellant. Rule 73(d), Rules of Civil Procedure, does not require the imposition of a 10% penalty as does the Kentucky statute.
Appellee’s motion for an award by this Court of 10% damages upon the affirmance of the judgment herein is overruled.

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