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:
METZGER v. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, Inc., et al.
No. 211.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 5, 1941.
Albert L. Lawrence, of Herkimer, N. Y., for appellant.
David B. Sugarman, of Syracuse, N. Y. (Arthur W. Burrows, of Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief), for appellees.
Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, entered upon the verdict of the jury. The action was for personal injuries due to a collision between the defendant’s motor car and a car which the plaintiff was driving. At the conclusion of the evidence, the plaintiff did not ask for the direction of a verdict, but after the jury had brought in a verdict in favor of the defendants, moved to set it aside as against the weight of evidence. This the court denied and its order is the only question raised upon this appeal.
The' jury could have found the following facts. On a rainy night in January the plaintiff, driving his car along the highway between Utica and Herkimer in the State of New York, was brought to a stop by a stalled motor truck on his side of the road. While he was waiting for other cars to pass which were coming in the opposite direction, the defendant’s truck ran into him from behind, causing the injuries in question. The excuse of the defendant’s driver was that, although he had on his “fog lights,” they did not light up the road far enough ahead for him to see the plaintiff’s car before it was too late. He had had to pull over to the right side of the road to let a car pass, whose bright lights blinded him and when he pulled back into his side of the road, he was within a few feet of plaintiff’s car. He was then moving at not more than sixteen or eighteen miles an hour.
The plaintiff’s theory is that the law of New York makes it negligent without more to drive a motor car at a speed such that an obstruction ahead cannot be seen in time to stop. Albertson v. Ansbacher, 102 Misc. 527, 169 N.Y.S. 188. That case did not profess to lay down so absolute a rule, and we can find no evidence that it exists in New York; and indeed, the defendants’ explanation, if accepted, made a substantial variant. The denial of a motion to set aside a verdict presents a different question upon appeal from the denial of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence; except in the most unusual circumstances it is not appealable. Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361, 363, 11 S.Ct. 355, 34 L.Ed. 958; Van Stone v. Stilwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 134, 12 S.Ct. 181, 35 L.Ed. 961; Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, 61, 62, 14 S.Ct. 26, 37 L.Ed. 996; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 248, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129; O’Donnell v. New York Transportation Co., 2 Cir., 187 F. 109, 110. Certainly there was nothing in this case which would justify us in upsetting the discretion of the trial judge.
Appeal dismissed.

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