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:
Antonio DA CRUZ, Appellant, v. J. W. HOLLAND, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
No. 12071.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 22, 1957.
Decided Feb. 12, 1957.
J. J. Kilimnik, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Robert W. Lees, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (W. Wilson White, U. S. Atty., Arthur R. Littleton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Antonio DaCruz, has been ordered deported on the charge stated in the warrant of arrest that he failed to maintain his non-immigrant, visitor’s status. There is no doubt but that he was gainfully employed within a few days after his entry into this country and was so employed at the time of his arrest. His counsel subsequently exhausted all available administrative procedures on his behalf. DaCruz claims in substance that he was illegally arrested without a warrant of arrest and that certain documents, including his passport, were then illegally taken from his possession, that he was denied a hearing de novo after a demand by him that the arresting officer testify before the hearing officer, and that the hearing officer himself was without authority to proceed in his case. He asserts in effect that neither the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1011, nor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq., were complied with and that he was denied rights guaranteed to him by the Fifth Amendment.
None of the points raised by DaCruz possesses merit and some border on the frivolous. See for example the charge in respect to the authority of the hearing officer in the light of the Savings Clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Sec. 405 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 note.
The court below was not in error in granting summary judgment against DaCruz. Accordingly the judgment will be 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: 1