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:
WENGER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 8876.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth. Circuit.
April 7, 1942.
A. W. Wenger, of Ladue City, Mo., and Henry B. Graves and Charles H. Hatch, both of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., J. P. Wenchel, Sewall Key, John W. Smith, J. Louis Monarch, and Morton K. Rothschild, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the records and briefs and oral argument of counsel.
And it appearing that the petitioner created a trust under which she and her children were beneficiaries, the income of which, together with the corpus, might be distributed in amounts within the discretion of the trustee, when requested in writing by petitioner or any of her children, in case “any accident, sickness, calamity, misfortune, adversity, bereavement or loss, financially or otherwise,” should befall them;
And it appearing that the trustee, who is petitioner’s nephew and has been her trusted adviser since 1916, has no substantial adverse interest in the disposition of the income or corpus of the trust property (Sections 166 and 167, Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, §§ 166, 167); Reinecke v. Smith, 289 U.S. 172, 53 S.Ct. 570, 77 L.Ed. 1109; Altmaier v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 116 F.2d 162, 164, certiorari denied 312 U.S. 706, 61 S.Ct. 827, 85 L.Ed. 1138; and that the necessity for a written request for payment is not a substantial condition precedent to the exercise of the trustee’s power to distribute the income or corpus to the petitioner ; and that the power to effect the distribution is wholly within the control of the petitioner and the trustee; Cf. Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 91, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L.Ed. 62;
And it appearing that the Board correctly concluded that under the trust instrument' the petitioner is permitted, if she cares to. do so and secures the acquiescence of the trustee, to cause the expenditure of the income and if necessary of the corpus, for needs for which petitioner normally would' have used the property had no trust been created; and that the entire income of the trust is taxable to the petitioner under Sections 166 and 167 of the Revenue Act of' 1934;
And no reversible error appearing in the record:
It is ordered that the decision be, and it hereby is, 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: 5