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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. J. Kenneth EDLIN, Appellant.
No. 11061.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5, 1966.
Decided Dec. 9, 1966.
Edward L. Genn, Washington, D. C. (Eugene Gressman, Washington, D. C., on motion), for appellant.
Arthur G. Murphy, First Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Edlin appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce or modify a sentence of imprisonment, or to stay its execution, pending the outcome of a new trial of a codefendant. We affirm.
In United States v. Johnson, 4 Cir., 337 F.2d 180, we affirmed Edlin’s conviction, though we reversed the conviction of a codefendant, Johnson, because of the use in evidence against Johnson of a speech he had made as a member of Congress on the floor of the House. As to Johnson, the case was remanded for a new trial, and this disposition of Johnson’s case was affirmed by the Supreme Court. United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 86 S.Ct. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681. Subsequently, Edlin sought a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, but his petition was denied on October 10,1966.
Edlin sought relief from the sentence of imprisonment in the District Court on the theory that the Government’s decision to retry or not to retry Johnson, and the outcome of Johnson’s retrial, if he is retried, may bear upon the appropriateness of Edlin’s sentence, since Edlin was convicted as an aider and abettor of Johnson in the commission of the primary offense. Johnson’s guilt, however, was abundantly proved at the initial trial and, if invocation of his congressional privilege makes it possible that he will not be retried, or, if retried, that he may be acquitted in the absence of incriminating evidence inadmissible against Johnson but fully admissible against Edlin, it has but slight, if any, relevance to the propriety of Edlin’s sentence.
We do not review sentences, of course, and we think it well within the discretion of the District Judge to deny the application for modification of Edlin’s sentence, or for postponement of its execution, under the circumstances of this case. Disposition of the motion, before Edlin is in a position to show what the ultimate outcome of Johnson’s retrial may be, was not a denial of his essential right to be fairly and fully heard, for surely the District Court in denying the motion took into account the fact that it is possible that Johnson may not be retried and, if retried, that he may be acquitted.
Denial of the motion for reduction, modification or postponement of service of the present sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. On the day of the oral argument in this case, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland announced that Johnson would be retried.

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