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:
Robert C. KING, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18119.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 4, 1963.
Decided Jan. 2, 1964.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1964.
Certiorari Denied April 20, 1964.
See 84 S.Ct. 1195.
Mr. Paul A. Lenzini, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Martin L. Friedman, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. William H. Willcox, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker and Miss Barbara A. Lindemann, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Bastian and McGowan, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted on a two-count indictment for taking indecent liberties with a minor child. He claims several errors were committed by the trial court. Only one needs to be discussed. Appellant says the court erred in instructing in the language of the statute, telling the jury that one element of the offense was that the defendant “[took], or attempted] to take” indecent liberties. Appellant says taking and attempting to take are two separate offenses and that this should have been made clear to the jury. He cites People v. Crane. But, in the first place, no objection was made in the trial court to the instruction. And, in the second place, the penalty under the statute for an attempt is the same as that for a taking, even if the two are regarded as separate offenses. The sentence given appellant was well within the statutory prescription. Thus no substantial right seems to have been affected in any realistic sense, even if the instruction was erroneous. In the third place, the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming.
Affirmed.
. 62 Stat. 347 (1948), D.C.Code, § 22-3501 (a) (1961 ed.).
. 302 Ill. 217, 134 N.E. 99 (1922).
. McQuaid v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 193 F.2d 696 (D.C.Cir. 1951).

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