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. James SHELLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 116, Docket 23246.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 12, 1954.
Decided Dec. 29, 1954.
Edgar G. Brisach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Leonard P Moore, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Louis J. Castellano, Jr., Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant-appellant.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.
CLARK, Chief Judge.
Defendant Shelley was prosecuted below on an information charging misuse of a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1544. The case was tried to the court on a stipulation of facts stating that Shelley had delivered a passport made out in his name to one Claflin in the Southern District of New York, knowing that Claflin intended to use the passport to obtain the illegal entry into the United States of an alien named Koch. Thereafter Claflin caused the passport to be given to Koch in Europe, who used it to effect entrance into the United States at the New York International or Idlewild Airport in the Eastern District. After the court had received the stipulation, Shelley made motions both for dismissal and for a judgment of acquittal. Judge Inch granted a motion to dismiss for failure to show commission of the offense charged in the Eastern District of New York, but refused to rule on other motions going to the merits. Shelley appeals from failure to grant these other motions, contending that they were intimately involved in the motion to dismiss for improper venue. In a motion to dismiss the appeal the government asserts that the order below was unappealable because interlocutory; but in further contending that defendant has no standing to appeal, it asserts that in fact a crime was committed in the Eastern District.
An order of dismissal for lack of venue, contrary to the assertion of the government, is final and appealable. “That the dismissal was without prejudice to filing another suit does not make the cause unappealable, for denial of relief and dismissal of the case ended this suit so far as the District Court was .concerned.” United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793, 794, 795 n. 1, 69 S.Ct. 824, 825, 93 L.Ed. 1042. And see Butler v. Ungerleider, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 238; Lopinsky v. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self Systems, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 422; Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 360, 362, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 947, 70 S.Ct. 484, 94 L.Ed. 584; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ff 54.12 [1], p. 114 (2d Ed.1953).
We do not need to reach the claim of the United States that Shelley .should be held under 18 U.S.C. § 2 to have committed a crime in the Eastern District as an aider and abettor of Koch’s action at Idlewild, because we accept the other contention of the United States that Shelley has no standing to appeal. A judgment is appealable only at the behest of a party aggrieved by it. United States v. Adamant Co., 9 Cir. 197 F.2d 1, certiorari denied Bullen v. Scoville, 344 U.S. 903, 73 S.Ct. 283, 97 L.Ed. 698; Keeler v. C.I.R., 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 707; In re Michigan-Ohio Bldg. Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 191. Having received the contested order of dismissal at his own request, Shelley is a successful litigant without appealable interest. He is not injured, and — luckily for him— may not appeal. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.

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