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 second 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:
EGNER et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 22, 1926.)
No. 3306.
1. Criminal law <§=>163 — Acquittal on charge of maintaining nuisanee is not bar to civil proceeding to abate, same nuisance (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 22 [Comp. St. § 10138 i/2k]).
Acquittal on a criminal charge of maintaining a liquor nuisance is not a bar to civil proceeding under National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 22 (Comp. St. § 1013Sy2k), to abate the same nuisance.
2. Intoxicating liquors <§=>280 — In nuisance abatement proceedings, assignment that court erred in not entering judgment for defendants held bad.
Assignment of error that “the court erred in not entering judgment in favor of the defendants and against the complainant,” in proceedings to abate liquor nuisance, held bad.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States ,for the District of New Jersey; John Rellstab, Judge.
Proceeding by the United States against Ray Egner and another (as amended, Louis Alexander and another), to abate liquor nuisanee. Decree for complainant, and defendants .appeal.
Affirmed.
John H. Kafes, of Trenton, N. J., for appellants.
Walter G. Winne, U. S. Atty., of Hackensack, N. J., and Harlan Besson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Hoboken, N. J., for the United States.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.
The situation in Murphy v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 595, which involved an acquittal of the defendants on a criminal charge of maintaining a nuisance and later a decree against them on the civil charge of maintaining the same nuisanee under appropriate. provisions of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 1013814 et seq.), is repeated in this ease. From the decree closing the premises for one year the defendants appealed and now assign three matters as error, which, abbreviated, are as follows:
(1) Error in entering the decree because the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was a bar to the civil proceeding.
The answer in the negative made by the Supreme Court to this question, certified in Murphy v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F. (2d) 595, disposes of this assignment.
(2) The findings of the court were against the weight of the evidence.
The evidence, properly weighed, sustains the findings.
(3) “The court erred in not entering judgment in favor of the defendants and against the complainant” — a bad assignment under the rule laid down in The Blakeley (C. C. A.) 285 F. 348, 350.
The decree is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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