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 respondent. 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).

Agnes BERGEN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. F/V ST. PATRICK, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 86-3900.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1989.
Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The appellee’s petition for rehearing of this case asked in part that we reconsider our reversal of the award of damages for parental loss of services. We stated in our opinion filed May 7, 1987 that there was no evidence in the record to support that award for any of the appellees other than the Stigalls. Bergen v. F/V/St. Patrick, 816 F.2d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir.1987). We said:
While there is evidence from which the court could have made findings regarding parental dependency of the Stigalls, no evidence was introduced from which the trial court could find that any of the other parents were dependent on their deceased children or expected to receive significant services from them. We must therefore hold that the other findings of dependency and services are clearly erroneous.
816 F.2d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir.1987). On rehearing, the appellees maintained, however, that certain deposition evidence had been considered by the district court and provided support for the findings of dependency and services with respect to the parents other than the Stigalls. Appellant disputed appellees’ contention that the district court considered such depositions.
The record on appeal indicated that the district court may have considered deposition evidence in support of the claims, but was not clear on the point. We therefore granted a limited remand of the case in order to permit the district court to amplify its findings with regard to dependency and services.
The district court has now done so, and on the basis of the district court’s supplemental findings and the supplemental mem-oranda submitted by the parties, we conclude that the district court did consider the deposition testimony as evidence supporting its findings. The appellants’ contentions in this appeal that the district court did not consider any such evidence are therefore incorrect.
Accordingly, we grant the appellee’s petition for rehearing in part and modify our original disposition. The award of damages for parental loss of support and services entered on behalf of each appellee is hereby affirmed.
The petition for rehearing is in all other respects denied.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App.P. 35.
Except as provided in this order, the petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. 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?
A. not ascertained
B. poor + wards of state
C. presumed poor
D. presumed wealthy
E. clear indication of wealth in opinion
F. other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy
Answer: