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:
EGNER et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 22, 1926.)
No. 3306.
1. Criminal law <§=>163 — Acquittal on charge of maintaining nuisanee is not bar to civil proceeding to abate, same nuisance (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 22 [Comp. St. § 10138 i/2k]).
Acquittal on a criminal charge of maintaining a liquor nuisance is not a bar to civil proceeding under National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 22 (Comp. St. § 1013Sy2k), to abate the same nuisance.
2. Intoxicating liquors <§=>280 — In nuisance abatement proceedings, assignment that court erred in not entering judgment for defendants held bad.
Assignment of error that “the court erred in not entering judgment in favor of the defendants and against the complainant,” in proceedings to abate liquor nuisance, held bad.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States ,for the District of New Jersey; John Rellstab, Judge.
Proceeding by the United States against Ray Egner and another (as amended, Louis Alexander and another), to abate liquor nuisanee. Decree for complainant, and defendants .appeal.
Affirmed.
John H. Kafes, of Trenton, N. J., for appellants.
Walter G. Winne, U. S. Atty., of Hackensack, N. J., and Harlan Besson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Hoboken, N. J., for the United States.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.
The situation in Murphy v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 595, which involved an acquittal of the defendants on a criminal charge of maintaining a nuisance and later a decree against them on the civil charge of maintaining the same nuisanee under appropriate. provisions of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 1013814 et seq.), is repeated in this ease. From the decree closing the premises for one year the defendants appealed and now assign three matters as error, which, abbreviated, are as follows:
(1) Error in entering the decree because the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was a bar to the civil proceeding.
The answer in the negative made by the Supreme Court to this question, certified in Murphy v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F. (2d) 595, disposes of this assignment.
(2) The findings of the court were against the weight of the evidence.
The evidence, properly weighed, sustains the findings.
(3) “The court erred in not entering judgment in favor of the defendants and against the complainant” — a bad assignment under the rule laid down in The Blakeley (C. C. A.) 285 F. 348, 350.
The decree is 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: 2