Task: songer_appel1_7_2

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 gender of this litigant. Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity (e.g., the sex of "Chris" should be coded as "not ascertained").

CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The authority for the order of deportation is found in 8 USCA § 137 (c) and (g). The Communist Party is well known to be a group which advocates tho overthrow of organized government by foi'ee. No claim is made that aliens who are members of it axe not subject to deportation. The appellant contends, however, that, as he was not a member at the time of his arrest, he could not be deported because of his previous membership ; that he was not shown to be affiliated with tho proscribed organization; and that tho proceedings which led to the order of deportation were unfair.
It is true that he was not a member of the Communist Party when arrested. He had recently been expelled because of bis attitude toward negroes, but that did not remove him from the reach of the statute. We have nothing to do with shaping the policy of the law toward aliens who come here and join a proscribed society. Congress has provided that “any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become thereafter, a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in this section” shall be deported. 8 USCA § 137 (g). This alien concededly did become after entry a member of “one of the classes * * * enumerated” and from that time became deportable. Wo are urged to ameliorate the supposed harshness of the statute by reading into it words that Congress saw fit to leave out and interpret it to apply not to aliens who become members, but only to those who become and continue to the time of their arrest to bo members, of ong of the enumerated classes. If the words used in the statute were equivocal or the intention of Congress for any reason uncertain, there might be room for such a construction as that for which the appellant now contends. Perhaps the sufficient answer is that had Congress intended membership at the time of arrest to be the criterion it would have said so. It has the power to determine what acts of an alien shall terminate his right to remain here. Skeffington v. Katzeff et al. (C. C. A.) 277 F. 129. What it did do was to make the act of becoming a member a deportable offense without’ regard to continuance of membership and it did that in language so plain that any attempt to read in any other meaning is no less than an attempt to circumvent the law itself.
Since the appellant admittedly had, after entry, become a member of a proscribed organization, the undisputed evidence required the order from which this appeal was taken. All proof upon which he was held to be affiliated with the Communist Party was unnecessary, and while we do not mean to intimate that any evidence on that phase of the case was unfairly received and considered, in any. event it did him no harm.
Order 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 gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.
A. not ascertained
B. male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
C. male - assumed because of name
D. female - indication in opinion of gender
E. female - assumed because of name
Answer:

Answer: B