Task: songer_appel1_7_3

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 the race or ethnic identity of this litigant as identified in the opinion. Names may be used to classify a person as hispanic if there is little ambiguity. All aliens are coded as "not ascertained".

PER CURIAM.
Begay, a Navajo Indian, appeals from a judgment of conviction for burglary within Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 contending the trial court erred in the admission of his written confession into evidence and that the evidence is insufficient to support conviction because the confession is corroborated only by independent evidence of the corpus delicti. The latter contention is self-defeating and needs no elaboration. Independent evidence of the commission of the crime consistent with the confession is ample to support conviction. Mapys v. United States, 10 Cir., 409 F.2d 964; Zamora v. United States, 10 Cir., 369 F.2d 855.
On the night of July 22, 1969, a store at Shiprock, New Mexico, was burglarized. Begay and two other Indians were indicted for the offense; the two other defendants pleaded guilty. During investigation of the burglary an F.B.I. agent, Gersky, having affirmative knowledge of Begay’s involvement, contacted Begay at his home and said he would like to talk with him about the burglary and they could talk at his home or the police station. Begay, 19, chose the police station and rode there with the agent; he did not say anything to the agent on the way, nor had he yet been advised of his rights. At the station he was advised of his rights and did sign a waiver of rights form and then made an inculpating statement.
A motion to suppress was heard and denied on two grounds: (1) that defendant was not in custody at the time of his interrogation and Miranda did not then apply; (2) the F.B.I. agent properly advised defendant of his rights. The record supports these determinations. Even assuming arguendo that Miranda custodial interrogation existed from the time appellant got into the car to go to the station, it does not appear his rights were violated or that any inculpating evidence was obtained prior to the time appellant was informed of his rights. Indeed, the testimony of Gersky, deemed credible by both court and jury, reveals a very commendable effort to assure Begay’s complete understanding of his rights.
Begay also asserts his confession should be held involuntary as a matter of law because coerced by “inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere” as projected into his subjective background. The record does not support such a claim. Begay was 19, attended school midway through the eleventh grade, was a good student, spoke English fluently and gave no indication of incapability to understand. We are satisfied that he was afforded all possible protections and that his confession was voluntary.
Affirmed.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

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)". What is the race or ethnic identity of this litigant as identified in the opinion?
A. not ascertained
B. caucasian - specific indication in opinion
C. black - specific indication in opinion
D. native american - specific indication in opinion
E. native american - assumed from name
F. asian - specific indication in opinion
G. asian - assumed from name
H. hispanic - specific indication in opinion
I. hispanic - assumed from name
J. other
Answer:

Answer: D