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:
HORNER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 5305.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 26, 1934.
Thomas D. McCloskey, Ered C. Houston, Kinnear, McCloskey & Best, and Arthur W. Henderson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Louis Monarch, S. Dee Hanson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. The petitioner owned stock of the American Rolling Mill Company. On January 10, 1928, the company issued rights to subscribe to additional stock on the basis of one share of new stock for each six shares of old stock at $75 a share. These rights expired on February 10, 1928. In January, 1928, the petitioner subscribed to 1,550, shares and, prior to their delivery, he agreed to and did sell an equal number of shares. He delivered certificates for 1,550 shares of the old stock then owned and held by him. It is undisputed that the sale was made by the petitioner in anticipation of the receipt by him of the new shares of stock, and that it was his intention and purpose to sell the new stock. In his income tax return for 1928 he computed the profit derived from the sale on the basis of the prospective cost of the new stock to be acquired; that is, $75 a share.
The Commissioner computed the profit on the basis of the cost of the old stock, which was less than $75 a share, and determined a deficiency. The Board of Tax Appeals found as a fact that the sale was of the petitioner’s old stock, representing a transaction completed before he had acquired the additional stock upon his right to subscribe, and therefore sustained the Commissioner’s assessment of a deficiency.
The Board of Tax Appeals held that sections 111 (a) and 113 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA §§ 2111 (a) and 2113 (a) were applicable. These sections provide:
“See. 111. (a) Except as hereinafter provided in this section, the gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the basis provided in section 113 [section 2113], and the loss shall be the excess of such basis over the amount realized. * * *
“Sec. 113. (a) The basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property acquired after February 28, 1913, shall be the cost of such property. * * * ”
There is nothing in either section which permits gain or loss to be determined on the basis of the intention of the parties. The Board determined from the facts what was actually done rather than what the petitioner intended to do. The petitioner sold the stock he had, not the stock he anticipated obtaining.
The Board concluded that the transaction constituted a sale of the old stock and that the taxable gain was properly computed on that basis. We are in entire accord with the reasoning and conclusions set out in its decision. 28 B. T. A. 360.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is sustained.

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: 5