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. ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS ($1,630.00), MORE OR LESS IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant, (Walter Raybon McDaniel, Claimant), Claimant-Appellant.
No. 90-7369
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 29, 1991.
Walter R. McDaniel, Clio, Ala., pro se.
James Eldon Wilson, U.S. Atty., John T. Harmon, Asst. U.S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a certificate issued by the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 (1988), a forfeiture proceeding. The certificate states that “there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the $1,630.00 at issue'in this case.” We dismiss the appeal because the certificate is not an appealable order.
In United States v. Frerichs, 106 U.S. 160, 161-62, 1 S.Ct. 169, 170, 27 L.Ed. 128 (1882), the Supreme Court held that an order (entered under section 2465’s predecessor) denying a certificate of reasonable cause is not appealable:
[T]he refusal of the district court to grant a certificate of reasonable cause is not a matter which can be reviewed in the circuit court or in this court. It is only from final judgments that a writ of error lies from the district to the circuit court, or from the latter court to the supreme court. The granting or the refusal to grant the certificate is not a final judgment in the sense of the statute which allows writs of error.
This language, though dicta as it relates to the granting of a certificate, plainly bars the appeal in this case. We can think of no basis for distinguishing — for purposes of appealability — an order granting a certificate from an order denying a certificate. This appeal is, accordingly,
DISMISSED.
Section 2465 provides that:
Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent; but if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered and the claimant shall not, in such case, be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or prosecution.

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