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, Appellee, v. Buford Wilson WORLEY, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. A. C. BENNETT, Appellant.
Nos. 10622, 10624.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 31, 1966.
Decided Nov. 3, 1966.
N. Welch Morrisette, Jr., Columbia, S. C., for appellant in No. 10,622, and Charles B. Bowers, Columbia, S. C., for appellant in No. 10,624 (G. Raymond Mc-Elveen, and Lightsey & Bowers, Columbia, S. C., on joint brief), for appellants.
Charles S. Porter, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The only question presented by this appeal is whether on the facts of this case the District Court committed reversible error in permitting the United States to offer in evidence typed transcriptions of recorded telephone conversations.
A special agent of the Alcohol and Tobacco Unit of the Treasury Department testified that he identified Worley and Bennett as the persons talking, that he recorded the conversations, that he had the recordings, that transcriptions had been made of them, and that he had compared the transcriptions to the recordings and that they were the same. Upon this foundation the United States offered the transcripts into evidence.
Although the basis for appellants’ objections in the court below is not entirely clear in the record, we assume for purposes of this decision, as contended for by appellants, that the ground for the objection was that the tape recordings per se were the “best evidence”, and that the failure of the United States to offer the recordings left a fatal gap in establishing authenticity of the transcriptions.
We think appellants’ position is without merit because the record shows that before the transcriptions were received it was shown that the recordings were available and the District Judge indicated willingness to order them to be produced, in words as follows: “Well, he says he has the recording available here. Would you rather have the recording?”
Even after notice of appeal, counsel for the United States in open court offered to make the recordings available to counsel for appellants Bennett and Worley for the purpose of comparison with the transcripts introduced. It does not appear that the offer was ever accepted, and it is not asserted before us that the transcripts used varied from the tape recordings. Compare United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1965).
Affirmed.
. They were in the office of the United States Attorney and readily available.

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