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".

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert WALTERS, Appellant.
No. 77-1122.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 6, 1977.
Decided Oct. 31, 1977.
John McNally, Alexandria, Va. (Michael McGettigan, Murphy, McGettigan, McNally & West, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant.
John Brennan, Third Year Law Student (William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., and Douglas Ross, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER, BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant was issued a violation notice at Washington National Airport charging him with a traffic violation. He was given the option of paying a fine of twenty-five dollars or appearing in court. Defendant elected to stand trial, and was tried by the district court. The judge, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty and imposed a fine of fifty dollars. Defendant appealed. We affirm.
Defendant complains that the imposition of the fifty-dollar fine, double the initial fine defendant could have paid if he had not stood trial, penalized him for exercising his right to a trial, and thus denied him his constitutional rights under the fifth and sixth amendments. We disagree.
In Colton v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972), the Supreme Court upheld the two-tier lower judiciary system of Kentucky, even though a harsher sentence could be imposed after a trial de novo. We hold that the rationale of Colton applies to the case at bar, and that the imposition of a greater fine as a result of defendant’s trial did not violate his constitutional rights under either the fifth or sixth amendments.
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)". What is the race or ethnic identity of this litigant as identified in the opinion?

Choices:
not ascertained
caucasian - specific indication in opinion
black - specific indication in opinion
native american - specific indication in opinion
native american - assumed from name
asian - specific indication in opinion
asian - assumed from name
hispanic - specific indication in opinion
hispanic - assumed from name
other

Answer: 0