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:
David Perea ROMERO and Ronald Eugene Tickle, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 21686, 21686-A.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1969.
Thomas R. Sheridan (argued), of Simon, Sheridan, Murphy, Thornton & Medvene, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Jo Ann Dunne (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and FOLEY, District Judge.
Honorable Roger D. Foley, District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
ROGER D. FOLEY, District Judge:
Appellant Romero was found guilty after a court trial on a two-count indictment charging violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. Romero’s counsel specifies as error the following:
“1. Romero’s arrest without a warrant was illegal as it lacked the prerequisite probable cause. * * *
“2. Romero’s statements after his arrest are not admissible into evidence and should have been suppressed as said statements were obtained in violation of Romero’s constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and said statements were not voluntary and said statements were obtained during a period of ‘unnecessary delay’ under Rule 5(a) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. * *
“3. There is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of Romero on count one of the indictment. * * *
“4. The search warrant is invalid and any evidence obtained pursuant to it should be suppressed as it does not set forth probable cause and it contains constitutionally inadmissible statements of Romero. * * *
“5. Romero’s statements at Tickle’s home were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and they are not voluntary statements, and they were obtained during a period of unnecessary delay pursuant to Rule 5(a) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. * * *
“6. There is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of Romero on count two of the indictment. * * ”
Appellant Tickle, who was named along with Romero in count two of the same indictment, was found guilty after a separate trial to the court. Tickle’s counsel alleges that the trial court committed three errors:
“1. There is insufficient evidence to convict Tickle on count two of the indictment. * * *
“2. The search warrant for his home fails to set forth probable cause and any evidence taken from his home should be suppressed. * * *
“3. The confession obtained from Tickle was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. * * ”
The answer to each of the asserted errors turns entirely upon the facts as they appear from the record. There are no unsettled questions of law to be resolved on this appeal. For us, it is simply a matter of determining whether the district court properly applied well-settled principles of law to* the facts of this case.
We have carefully read the entire record of the proceedings below and studied the briefs of counsel filed with this court, and we are satisfied that all of the assignments of error are without merit. Throughout all of the proceedings before him, the district judge ruled correctly in all of the instances raised on this appeal and, in addition, fully protected the rights of the appellants and accorded them a fair trial. Not one of appellants’ nine specifications of error is worthy of discussion.
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