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").

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Wayland WHITE, Jr., Appellant.
No. 8488.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 6, 1962.
Decided June 8, 1962.
Robert S. Cahoon, Greensboro, N. C., for appellant.
R. Roy Mitchell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and CRAVEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is a companion case to United States v. Copeland, 4 Cir., 295 F.2d 635.
Wayland White, Jr., the defendant here, was jointly indicted with Copeland and others for an alleged conspiracy to violate Internal Revenue Laws relating to whisky.
White could not be present when his codefendants were tried and convicted. Later, he was tried separately. Testimony was then introduced, which is summarized in our opinion in Copeland. The principal witness for the prosecution testified that he purchased whisky from White, that White was present during another transaction alleged to have been in furtherance of the conspiracy, that White, himself, negotiated with the witness for the sale and delivery of whisky and the procurement of jars and sugar. This witness also testified that White told him some of the details of the conspiracy.
White now seeks a reversal of his conviction upon the ground that the court erroneously received in evidence statements of certain of the alleged co-conspirators, showing the conspiracy and White’s participation. He particularly objects to some of the statements received in evidence before direct evidence of White’s participation in the conspiracy had been received.
These are identically the same contentions raised by White’s co-conspirator, Copeland, and which we have fully considered on Copeland’s appeal from his conviction.
For the reasons stated in United States v. Copeland, the judgment of conviction is 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 gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.

Choices:
not ascertained
male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
male - assumed because of name
female - indication in opinion of gender
female - assumed because of name

Answer: 3