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:
Lamar WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
No. 15961.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 19, 1965.
Lamar Williams, in pro. per.
Thomas L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Dwayne D. Maddox, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, D. C., on brief for appellee.
Before CECIL, O’SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was disallowed by the district court, and petitioner has appealed.
Petitioner and three codefendants were charged with robbing a bank in Oakland, Tennessee, on February 3, 1961, and placing the bank employees’ lives in jeopardy by use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Petitioner was represented by counsel at the hearing and entered a plea of guilty.
This is the same bank robbery that was involved in Olive v. United States, 327 F.2d 646 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1653, 12 L.Ed.2d 740. The facts in the present case are substantially similar in many respects to the facts as set forth in some detail in the opinion of this court in the Olive case, and will not be repeated here.
The order of the district judge contains the following summary of the former proceedings:
“The petitioner entered pleas of guilty in this Court to the offenses charged against him and completely admitted his guilt of the offenses in open court.
“The United States of America has filed a motion to dismiss the petition and supported that motion with Affidavits of Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and also the complete official court reporter’s transcript of all proceedings in this case. The Court recalls vividly this entire matter. The petitioner, along with his accomplices, were apprehended in a getaway car with the money obtained during the robbery and the gun used in the holdup was found in the car minutes after the robbery of The Oakland Deposit Bank, Oakland, Tennessee, on February 3, 1961.
“As shown by the transcript, the indictments were read to the petitioner in full by the Clerk in open court. At the time the pleas of guilty were entered in this cause, Lamar Williams was represented by competent counsel who was acquainted with his family. The Court questioned him as to his guilt of the offenses charged against him. Subsequently, on the date of sentencing, March 29, 1961, the Court again questioned petitioner as to his pleas of guilty and afforded him every opportunity to make a statement and asked him if the District Attorney made a true factual statement of his case.”
We find that this summary is fully supported by the record.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473; Olive v. United States, supra; United States v. Orlando, 327 F.2d 185 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 825, 85 S.Ct. 50, 13 L.Ed.2d 35.

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