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, Appellee, v. Frederick MARSH, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 82-1888.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Feb. 10, 1984.
Decided Oct. 4, 1984.
Stephen M. Perry, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, with whom David M. Roseman, Casner, Edwards & Roseman, John Russell, Herlihy & Russell, Raymond Gillespie, Daniel Kelleher, Michael O’Laughlin, Anne Mackin, Stephen Morse, Guterman, Horwitz, Rubin & Rudman, and Martin Gideonse, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for defendants, appellants.
Tobin Harvey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., and John C. Doherty, Asst. U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges, and GIGNOUX, Senior District Judge.
This opinion also covers Nos. 82-1889, United States v. Anouncio Archbold; 82-1890, United States v. Jean Archbold; 82-1892, United States v. Jose Ospina; 82-1893, United States v. Victor Figueroa; and 82-1921, United States v. Augustin Archbold.
Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
COFFIN, Circuit Judge.
After our remand, the district court, 747 F.2d 7 clarified its earlier decision, affirming that its conclusion that defendants knew that the destination of the contraband was the United States was based on evidence which it deemed sufficient to prove such knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore proceed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence under this proper and rigorous standard.
Admittedly the evidence is circumstantial. There is no smoking gun. But, looked at starkly, taking evidence and inferences favorable to the prosecution, the situation appears as follows. The seven defendants were members of a crew who, with a Danish captain, manned a fairly large (116 foot) “mother ship” for some 19 days, from Colombia to a point 270 miles off the northeast coast of the United States, southeast of Nantucket Island. The ship was headed west, toward the continental United States, when it was apprehended. Of this crew a substantial proportion must have stood watches and been acquainted with the general course of their progress. The crew lived, slept, and ate in a common area. There was no apparent reason for secrecy or concealment, either of progress or destination.
Under these circumstances, to conclude that, after such a period of time, among such a small group, with knowledge of being so close to and headed toward the only large, as well as most affluent, market area, i.e., mainland United States, as opposed to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, Canada, a finder of fact could not reasonably have found that all defendants knew that the GRIMURKAMBAN’s destination was the United States, seems to us beyond the pale of realism. On the contrary, it seems to us that in such an informal setting, after almost three weeks at sea, the chief topic of interest would be the where and when of the end of the voyage, and that the absence of logical alternatives would sufficiently indicate the United States.
We therefore affirm the judgments below in the cases we remanded to the district court.

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