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. David Alan GERNANNT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 28550
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 15, 1970.
Edward J. Witten, Jacksonville, Fla. (Ct.Appted.), for appellant.
John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Joseph W. Hatchett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Before WISDOM, THORNBERRY, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We have directed the Clerk to place the ease on the Summary Calendar.
The only issue that this case presents for review is whether there was a basis in fact for denying David Alan Gernannt’s request for classification as a conscientious objector. We hold that there was, and affirm the district court.
David Alan Gernannt appeals from his conviction of knowingly and willfully refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States. 50 App. U.S.C. § 462(a). When ordered to report for induction, Gernannt was classified I-A. He reported to the induction station and submitted to pre-induction processing, but refused to take the symbolic step forward. Thereafter he was indicted, convicted upon a jury trial and sentenced to a five year term of imprisonment.
In the district court and on appeal Gernannt asserted as a defense to the criminal charge against him that his Selective Service file reflected no basis in fact to support the I-A classification, that he was entitled to be classified I-O, a conscientious objector, and that therefore the order of induction was an invalid order.
In Robertson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 440, 445, rev’g en banc, 1968, 404 F.2d 1141, we stated:
The scope of review in draft cases is very limited, and the range of review is the narrowest known to the law. The courts do not sit as super draft boards, substituting their judgments on the weight of the evidence, nor should they look for substantial evidence to support such determinations. Decisions of local boards are final and the courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by local boards is justified, for their decisions made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no “basis in fact” for the classification which it gave the registrant.
Dickinson v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 389, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98 L.Ed. 132, clarifies what is meant by a “basis in fact.”
Local boards are not courts of law and are not bound by traditional rules of evidence; they are given great leeway in hearing and considering a variety of material as evidence. If the facts are disputed the board bears the ultimate responsibility for resolving the conflict — the courts will not interfere. Nor will the courts apply a test of “substantial evidence.” However, the courts may properly insist that there be some proof that is incompatible with the registrant’s proof of exemption.
346 U.S. at 396, 74 S.Ct. at 157, 98 L.Ed. at 138.
The “basis in fact” concept was again discussed in the context of determining a registrant’s conscientious objector classification in Witmer v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392, 99 L.Ed. 428. The Court said:
[T]he ultimate question in conscientious objector cases is the sincerity of the registrant in objecting, on religious grounds, to participation in war in any form. In these cases, objective facts are relevant only insofar as they help in determining the sincerity of the registrant in his claimed belief, purely a subjective question. In conscientious objector cases, therefore, any fact which casts doubt on the veracity of the registrant is relevant. It is “affirmative evidence * * * that a registrant has not painted a complete or accurate picture. * * * [citations omitted].”
348 U.S. at 381-382, 75 S.Ct. at 396, 99 L.Ed. 434. The ultimate question is the registrant’s sincerity. Objective facts are relevant therefore only insofar as they help determine the subjective question of the sincerity of the registrant’s belief. See Riles v. United States, 5 Cir. 1955, 223 F.2d 786.
Gernannt’s selective service file listed four persons who could supply information as to the sincerity of his professed convictions against participation in war. The letters submitted by these people, however, cast doubt on Gernannt’s professed convictions against war, both as a conscientious objector and as a Jehovah’s Witness.
The selective service file also included a completed conscientious objector form which was submitted by Gernannt. With regard to his religious training and belief Gernannt stated that the nature of his belief which formed the basis of his conscientious objector claim, along with his sources of training and public expression, were all based on his regular attendance at meetings and on door-to-door missionary work. There is evidence in the file, however, that tends to refute appellant’s contention that he regularly attended meetings and engaged in door-to-door talks. Moreover, Gernannt’s mother testified on direct examination that her son had not been an active practitioner in the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion for a number of years.
It cannot be said therefore that there was no basis in fact for classifying Gernannt I-A. There is evidence in the record and in Gernannt’s stated beliefs to support an inference of his insincerity in objecting, on religious grounds, to participation in war in any form.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. See Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I, and Fifth Circuit Hule 18.

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: 1