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:
McGRAW v. UNITED STATES. HERSEY v. SAME.
Nos. 4117, 4118.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 15, 1946.
Alfred A. Albert, of Boston, Mass., and Clarence Scott, of Old Town, Me., for appellants.
John D. Clifford, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Edward J. Harrigan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland, Me., and Nathan T. Elliff, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
WOODBURY, Circuit Judge.
It is conceded that for present purposes the facts of these cases are similar.- So, the cases coming before us on a single record, and having been briefed as one, we can dispose of these appeals by a single opinion even though they have not been consolidated.
In 1942 both appellants were indicted, tried by jury, convicted and sentenced for violating § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, in that they refused to report for induction pursuant to notices sent to them by their local draft board. Upon completion of the sentences then imposed both were again classified in 1-A by their local board. Neither made any attempt to obtain review of his classification by a board of appeal, and in due course late in August 1944, both submitted upon orders to pre-induction physical examinations. As a result of these examinations both were found physically and mentally acceptable for general military service. Subsequently in mid March 1945, they were ordered a second time to report for induction and again they refused to do so. Indictment, trial, this time they waived trial by jury and were tried by the court, and conviction followed, and they have taken these appeals from the judgments of sentence thereupon entered.
Both appellants have waived appeal on the ground of double jeopardy. They contend only that they are entitled to new trials on the ground that the court below erred under the rule of the Estep and Smith cases (Estep v. United States, 66 S.Ct. 423), in refusing to permit them to submit evidence that their local board, acted arbitrarily, capriciously and contrary to law in classifying them in 1-A, instead of in IV-D, the classification they claim as members of the sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Since neither appellant attempted any administrative review of the classification given him by the local board, neither has pursued the administrative remedies available to him to exhaustion, and it is now firmly established that unless a registrant does so he may not challenge the legality of his classification in the courts. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305; Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U.S. 542, 558, 64 S.Ct. 737, 88 L.Ed. 917; Estep v. United States, supra.
The judgments of the District Court are affirmed.
Both are registrants of Local Board 2, Penobscot County, Bangor, Maine.

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