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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Danny Richard MASSINGALE et al., Appellants.
No. 74-1125.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 5, 1974.
Decided Aug. 1, 1974.
T. K. Alexander, Columbia, S. C., for appellants Massingale; James W. Coth-ran, Bishopville, S. C., for appellant Wilie; (James C. Anders, Columbia, S. C., on brief, for appellants).
Oscar W. Bannister, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (John K. Grisso, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
These defendants were indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of kidnapping in violation, of 18 U.S.C. § 1201, as amended. The only issue on this appeal is whether the district court properly denied the defendants’ motion for twenty peremptory challenges granted to one charged with a capital crime under Rule 24(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., and to a list of the Government’s witnesses required to be furnished in a capital case under 18 U.S.C. § 3432.
If this case presented nothing more than the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the death penalty provision of section 1201 by the Court in United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968), we would be faced with the dilemma which has confronted the courts in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), and which was thoroughly discussed by Judge Winter in United States v. James A. Watson, 496 F.2d 1125 (4 Cir. 1973). However, the 1972 amendment of Section 1201 by the Congress, which eliminated the death penalty, removed kidnapping from the classification of a capital offense and, accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of either the rule or statutory section upon which their motion was based.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
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