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:
Vincent A. GIANFRIDDO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. The WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee. Vincent A. GIANFRIDDO, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. The WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant, Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 85-1604, 85-1605.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued Jan. 8, 1986.
Decided March 21, 1986.
Christy A. Pano, with whom Paño & Maloney was on brief, for Vincent A. Gianfriddo.
Philip J. Moss, with whom Morgan, Brown & Joy, was on brief, for The Western Union Telegraph Co.
Before COFFIN and BOWNES, Circuit Judges, and ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Vincent A. Gianfriddo, seeks reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Western Union Telegraph Co., on Count II of his age discrimination complaint, and reversal of that court’s order denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint. For the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Order of June 7, 1985, we affirm the judgments on these issues.
Appellee cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees. We share the district court’s concern for the way appellant conducted this case, “especially the plaintiff’s indifference towards Local Rule 12 and his unexcused failure to heed the final extension order dated February 25, 1985”. We think it a close judgment call whether or not the district court should have assessed attorney’s fees, but cannot say that the court abused its discretion.
Once having had full consideration in the district court, however, and the benefit of that court’s painstaking 17 page opinion, we can discern no plausible justification for prolonging this litigation. We therefore assess, as a sanction for a frivolous appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, double costs and an attorney’s fee of $500 against appellant. If appellant’s counsel did not advise against the propriety of taking this appeal, see Rule 3.1, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, then in good conscience he should reimburse appellant. See Limerick v. Greenwald, 749 F.2d 97 (1st Cir.1984).
Affirmed.
"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous____”

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