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:
Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr., Appellant, v. Carl WHITE, Superintendent, Missouri Training Center for Men, Appellee.
No. 78-1714.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 2, 1979.
Decided Jan. 8, 1979.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 22, 1979.
Clovis Carl Green, Jr., pro se.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen. and Michael H. Finkelstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On July 19, 1978, plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming he was unconstitutionally transferred from the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly to the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City because of his religious practices and beliefs and because he had earlier filed suit against Missouri prison authorities. Plaintiff sought $1,000,000 for violation of his constitutional rights and a declaration that the Human Awareness Universal Life Church is a legitimate religion that must be recognized by defendant, the Superintendent of the Moberly facility. On September 18, 1978, Judge Meredith, of the United States District Court of Missouri, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s petition with prejudice.
In an accompanying memorandum, Judge Meredith explained that the record established that plaintiff was transferred from Moberly, a medium security prison, back to Jefferson City, a maximum security prison, only after he threatened to kill certain prison officials and after an administrative board hearing was held on the incident. [The chronological data sheet of the Missouri Division of Corrections shows: The threat was made April 14,1976, when plaintiff stated, “Guess I will have to kill a few people when I get out of here”; plaintiff admitted making the statement when he appeared before the administrative hearing board on April 15,1976, although he argued that he was only joking; and that in recommending plaintiff be transferred to Jefferson City for purposes of controlling plaintiff’s behavior, the administrative hearing board stated in its report of April 15, 1976, that plaintiff posed a threat to the safety of the personnel at the Moberly institution and was an antisocial and devious criminal.]
The entire record and, in particular, plaintiff’s chronological data sheet from the Missouri Division of Corrections containing the signed April 15, 1976, report of the administrative hearing board supports the district court.
Plaintiff claims on appeal the district court ignored his claim that defendant violated his freedom of religion. The complaint states that plaintiff was threatened with transfer from Moberly to Jefferson City if he did not stop his religious activities and that subsequently he was transferred. In holding that plaintiff was transferred after he had threatened on April 14, 1976, to kill certain prison officials and “in the best interests of the prisoner and of other prisoners and prison officials,” the district court did rule by implication that plaintiff was not being transferred for his religious practices.
In conclusion, the records of the Missouri Division of Corrections show and the district court found plaintiff was transferred for the good of plaintiff, the other prisoners, and the prison staff because of plaintiff’s antisocial behavior and not for his religious practices or litigious proclivities.
Affirmed.

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