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:
GONZALEZ v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4802.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Feb. 26, 1954.
Claudio Gonzalez Rodriguez, pro se, on brief for appellant.
Ruben Rodriguez Antongiorgi, U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., on brief for ap-pellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and MARIS and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.
Though the notice of appeal in this case is inartistically drawn and perhaps technically defective, we read it indulgently in the light of the record, and take it to be, what it no doubt was intended to be, an appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion by appellant under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a judgment of conviction in which a sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed for a narcotics offense under 26 U.S.C. § 2553. It is conceded by the government that the appeal is timely. Mercado v. United States, 1 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 486.
We disregard allegations in appellant’s brief and appendix thereto having no support in the record. The record before us is brief and presents a simple situation. Upon arraignment in the district court, Claudio Gonzalez Rodriguez, being advised by counsel, signed a waiver of indictment, and pleaded guilty to an information filed by the United States Attorney. After a short statement by the prosecutor as to the defendant’s prior criminal record, the court forthwith imposed the sentence of imprisonment, in a judgment entered October 26, 1951.
On September 15, 1953, appellant filed in the district court his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the aforesaid judgment of conviction. The sole ground stated in the motion for attacking the validity of the judgment is the allegation that “the evidence on which the conviction rests was illicit”, in that it was procured in the course of an unconstitutional search and seizure. It is not even claimed in the motion that appellant was innocent of the offense charged.
But the judgment of conviction does not rest on evidence turned up in an unlawful search and seizure but, rather, upon the plea of guilty. The judgment of conviction upon the plea of guilty cannot be held to be void, and thus open to attack on habeas corpus or on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a substituted remedy provided by Congress for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus. If one is guilty, there is nothing wrong in pleading guilty — nor is there error by the court in accepting such a plea and sentencing the accused thereon- — even though it might be true that the government would have been unable to establish the accused’s guilt had he pleaded not guilty.
The order of the District Court 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)". 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: 8