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 v. William CLAPP, a/k/a William Clark, Appellant.
No. 16301.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 7, 1967.
Decided Dec. 19, 1967.
James K. O’Malley, Morris, Safier & Teitelbaum, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Hubert I. Teitelbaum, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Nick S. Fisfis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Gustave Diamond, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER, HASTIE and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
-OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, the defendant Clapp was found guilty on seven counts of a nine-count indictment charging violations of Section 1010, Title 18 U.S. C.A. in the making of false statements in applications for property improvement loans to the Federal Housing Administration, via the Brookline Savings and Trust Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The District Court denied the defendant’s alternative motion for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial and entered the judgment of sentence which resulted in the instant appeal.
On review of the record we do not subscribe to the defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced at the trial was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty, nor do we subscribe to his further contention that the trial judge erred in the admission of evidence.
The District Court’s Judgment of Sentence will be 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