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 citizenship of this litigant as indicated in the opinion.

Opinion:
David Simpson WINDSOR, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 84-3102
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1984.
David Simpson Windsor, II, pro se.
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Francis G. Weller, New Orleans, La., for defendantappellee.
Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Circuit Judge:
The ever increasing volume of appeals filed with this court threatens to inundate our docket. The possibility of that spectre requires that we adhere firmly to rules governing the conduct of the appellate process, including the dismissal of patently frivolous appeals. This appeal founders for two reasons: appellant has not complied with our briefing rules and his appeal is totally devoid of merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
David Simpson-Windsor, II filed suit against Pan American Airways seeking damages in the amount of four hundred trillion dollars “on the grounds of grand theft ... with the intent to commit nuclear sabotage on Flight 759,” a flight which tragically crashed immediately after takeoff from Moisant International Airport killing all aboard. Appellant alleges that Pan American Airways conspired with the family of President Kennedy and with President Carter to cause the crash of Flight 759. Appellant further alleged that President Carter had “illegally accumulated over 40 trillion dollars in assets — based on ideas [President Carter] had stolen from the plaintiff’s patents and copyrights on file in Washington, D.C.” According to plaintiff, President Carter was joined in this grand theft scheme by Presidents Kennedy, Ford and Reagan. Inexplicably, Presidents Johnson and Nixon were implicitly exonerated from this presidential miscreancy.
Plaintiff-appellant then amended his pro se pleadings seeking the arrest and detention of the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., identified as Matilda Winfield alias Adams alias King alias Sykes, because she posed a threat to the Roman Catholic Church and its episcopacy. Specifically, appellant alleges that Mrs. King planned to take over an order of Black Nuns and become its Mother Superior, all as a prelude to her ultimate plan to “install herself as a self-declared ‘Black Popess.’ ” In all of this, plaintiff sought to foil St. Peter who was actually the Black Devil and the father of Judas Iscariot.
Demonstrating remarkable restraint, the district court carefully reviewed the pleadings and attachments and concluded that plaintiff had not asserted a legally cognizable claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This ruling is eminently correct. Plaintiff advances claims that are absolutely and irretrievably without a semblance of merit. No federal court, trial or appellate, is obliged to allot more than a modicum of scarce judicial resources to such claims. Summary disposition was in order in the trial court; it is equally in order here.
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)". What is the citizenship of this litigant as indicated in the opinion?

Choices:
not ascertained
US citizen
alien

Answer: 0