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. Larry Wayne WALKER, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 7481.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
April 29, 1970.
Norman C. Ross, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, for appellant.
Stanislaw R. J. Suchecki, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for the United States, appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, COFFIN, Circuit Judge, and FORD, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment must be affirmed on the opinion below 304 F.Supp. 970. In United States v. Powers, 1 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 834, we upheld the reasonableness of regulation 32 C.F.R. 1625.2, which provides that a claim for conscientious objector status must be made before the registrant receives his induction notice, unless his entitlement to that status did not mature until after-wards. See also, United States v. Gearey, 2 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 144. We cannot in this respect consider it unreasonable to require a registrant to exercise at least a minimum amount of diligence in his own interest. We held, for reasons there set out, that the registrant had a duty of inquiry as to the nature of that status, and that it would constitute an undue and unworkable burden upon the operation of the Service if he could do nothing, and then awaken to his rights, or alleged rights, at the final moment. In the case at bar we do not consider that defendant’s asking two friends, who were as uninformed as himself, satisfied that burden.
The reason for this regulation requires it to be applied in an individual case, at least in the discretion of the Board, without holding a hearing and taking testimony. For us to decide otherwise would effectively destroy the rule and the purpose behind it.

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