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. Albert Earl FARMER, Appellant.
No. 8800.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 11, 1963.
Decided June 13, 1963.
Joseph M. Wright, Shelby, N. C., for appellant.
William Medford, U. S. Atty. (James O. Israel, Jr., and Robert J. Robinson, Asst. U. S. Attys., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Albert Earl Farmer appeals from his conviction under several counts of an indictment for using the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. The scheme consisted of solicitations made by mail contemporaneously to several persons, offering to sell them a collection of old guns. After the persons addressed sent the defendant the sums requested no guns were shipped to any of them. It was shown that the defendant in fact owned no antique guns as represented.
The appeal is based chiefly on alleged errors of the trial court in admitting in evidence certain letters allegedly written by the defendant and his wife to the victims of the fraud. Overlooking the fact that at trial no objection was raised by the defendant as to some of these items, we still find no error. The letters now complained of were in response to letters written to the defendant by the victims and tend to explain the circumstances of the offenses charged. Moreover, even if some of the letters had been technically objectionable, no prejudice could have resulted from their admission, for they merely parallel statements of the defendant himself, made in other unobjectionable letters, acknowledging that he obtained substantial sums of money from the victims and failed to return the money or to ship the guns ostensibly sold to them.
The other contentions of .the appellant are so patently frivolous as to require no discussion.
The judgment 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: 1