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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Victor SCARAMUZZO, aka Frank Moore, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 74-2164.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 18, 1974.
Stephen Stein (argued), Goodman, Snyder & Gang, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant.
Stuart W. Rudnick, Special Atty. (appeared), Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
OPINION
Before BROWNING, DUNIWAY, and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of devising a scheme to defraud the Central Telephone Company in Las Vegas, Nevada, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The evidence established that appellant avoided toll charges for at least one long distance call from Las Vegas to" Los Angeles by first placing a toll-free call to an area code 800 number subscribed to by the American Express Company in Phoenix, Arizona, and then diverting that call to the Los Angeles number by use of an electronic device called a “blue box.”
There is no merit in appellant’s contention that 18 U.S.C. § 1343 does not apply to frauds involving telephone communications. This court has twice affirmed convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in which interstate telephone calls played an integral role in the scheme to defraud, Battaglia v. United States, 349 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1965); Spindler v. United States, 336 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1964), and the legislative history of the 1956 amendment to the statute demonstrates that Congress intended to reach frauds perpetrated by telephone. H.R. Rep. No. 2385, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956), 1956 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 3091.
Alternatively, appellant argues that the statute must be read to apply only to frauds committed on the recipient of the message, not the transmitter. We agree with the conclusion of the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits that this contention is without merit. See Scott v. United States, 448 F.2d 581, 583 n.5 (5th Cir. 1971); Brandon v. United States, 382 F.2d 607, 611 (10th Cir. 1967).
We are not impressed with appellant’s suggestion at oral argument that the scheme to defraud may have been completed before any interstate transmission of sounds or signals occurred, but, in any event, this contention was not properly raised in the district court.
Affirmed.
Honorable Joe McDonald Ingraliam, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

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: 1