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:
PEPPERS v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 10, 1930.
No. 5387.
Blase A. Buonpane, of Cleveland, Ohio (Buonpane, Sherman & Buonpane, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
John B. Osmun, of Cleveland, Ohio (Wilfred J. Mahon, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The only error alleged and requiring attention is that the judge communicated with the jury after their retirement and not in open court in the presence of both counsel. The facts are that the jury sent word to the judge that they wished to ask a question; he returned instructions to put it in writing; thereupon in writing they asked whether they could have further information on a certain point; in writing he replied that they could not, for the case was closed. Practically at once, and while the jury was still out, the judge told appellant’s counsel what had been done. Counsel made no request and intimated no desire that the jury be recalled and the ease be reopened; even if the proceeding had been in open court and such a request had been made, its granting would have been discretionary.
If formal error there was, it is clear that there was no prejudice. See Sandusky Co. v. Hamilton (C. C. A. 6) 287 F. 609. It is not necessary to consider the precise effect of section 269, Judicial Code (section 391, tit. 28, USCA), in cases where it is not clear whether or not there might be prejudice.' Robilio v. United States (C. C. A.) 291 F. 975, 980, 981. In this ease, there surely was none; and this section forbids reversal.
The verdict and sentence are 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