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:
Vernon JOHNSON, Appellant, v. GRIM-SMITH HOSPITAL et al., Appellees.
No. 71-1311.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 25, 1972.
James B. Morris, Jr., Morris & Morris, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.
William Y. Frick, Frick & Mayberry, Kirksville, Mo., for appellees, Grim-Smith Hospital and Robert William Buben.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and REGISTER, District Judge;
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff takes this timely appeal from final judgment dismissing his malpractice action on motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing malpractice actions. (§ 516.140 RSMol959, V.A.M.S.).
The facts and basis of decision are fairly set forth in Judge Wangelin’s opinion reported at 326 F.Supp. 537.
Plaintiff upon appeal strongly urges that summary judgment was improper because disputed fact issues exist. Summary judgment of course is inappropriate where a dispute exists as to a material fact. The record consists of the pleadings, affidavits, interrogatories, answers thereto and depositions. While some factual disputes exist, the trial court assumed for the purpose of his ruling that representations were made as stated by the plaintiff. The court then determined that, under the controlling Missouri law set forth in its opinion, the record when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff afforded no basis for tolling the statute of limitations. The trial court’s decision is not based upon the resolution of material factual issues.
We agree with the view of the trial court that no dispute exists as to material facts. The facts as urged by the plaintiff and accepted by the trial court for the purpose of ruling on the motion are inadequate upon the basis of controlling Missouri law to support a finding that the statute of limitations was tolled.
The judgment of dismissal 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: 0