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. John J. FELICE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-5008.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 4, 1979.
Decided Nov. 14, 1979.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 18, 1980.
Gerald A. Messerman, Gold, Rotatori, Messerman & Schwartz, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellant.
James R. Williams, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Jody Mateer. Litchford, T. George Gilinsky, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, KEITH, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant Felice was indicted on 12 counts of racketeering and embezzling of union funds. Nine of the counts were dismissed by the District Judge on defendant’s motions for acquittal, and the jury found appellant guilty on Count 12 only, involving embezzlement of $332.80 from the union’s Health and Welfare Fund. This issue is the sole subject of the appeal.
The facts show that Felice had purchased a woman’s ring while in Hawaii at a Teamsters Union Conference, and had paid for it by charging it on his American Express card. The American Express bill was mailed to his union office and the union bookkeeper paid it from union funds, according to her testimony, at a time when she was unable to ask Felice about it. This expenditure was, however, approved at an executive board meeting of the Local while Felice was presiding. Defendant’s basic argument is that American Express had made a mistake by listing the place of purchase as “La Galleria Original” rather than “Pex of Hawaii,” and that the bookkeeper had made a mistake in paying it by union check. Appellant also claims that he was deprived of a proper charge reflecting his mistake defense when the District Judge did not submit the charge on that subject which his counsel had submitted.
In answer to all of the above the government argues that the evidence shows defendant’s personal participation in approving payment by the union’s Health and Welfare Fund of the ring purchase, and that the District Judge gave strong instructions on the government’s burden for proving beyond reasonable doubt “that Mr. Felice had a fraudulent intent to deprive the union of its funds” and “to act with intent to defraud means to act willfully and with specific intent to deceive or cheat” and that “he did so with fraudulent intent to deprive the union’s Health and Welfare Fund of its funds.”
On review of this record we find that the charge taken as a whole was ample to protect defendant against conviction for any reason other than intentional fraud, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict.
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