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:
Morris STEINBERG, Appellant, v. J. L. DORFMAN and Sol Schoeman, Appellees.
No. 19985.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1966.
Rodney Moss, Brown & Brown, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Aaron Elmore, Wiseman & Elmore, Beverly Hills, Cal., Lewis, Signer, Burns & Goldstone, Los Angeles, Cal., for ap-pellees.
Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The order of the district court affirming the referee’s order denying Stein-berg a discharge in bankruptcy is affirmed.
The referee heard the testimony of the bankrupt concerning the inadequacy of his books and his explanation as to the disappearance of money which had been in the bankrupt’s hands. Obviously the referee disbelieved much, or a portion, of the attempted explanation.
We are not persuaded from our review of the record that the referee was mistaken. Thus, we cannot say his determination was clearly erroneous.

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