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:
Mitchell BRANFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15239.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
March 2, 1966.
Mitchell Branford, Jr., pro se.
Richard P. Stein, U. S. Atty., James Manahan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
KILEY, Circuit Judge.
This is a pro se petition for habeas corpus by a prisoner sentenced March 25, 1961, by a general court-martial for a violation of 10 U.S.C. § 918, Article 118 of the Universal Code of Military Justice. The district court dismissed the petition. We affirm.
The petitioner contends that the court-martial was without jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution against him for a capital offense in time of peace; that he is entitled to a jury trial; and that he was not informed at the trial that “at least one third of the members of the Courts-Martial could have been enlisted men.”
This court in Owens v. Markley, 289 F.2d 751 (7th Cir. 1961), decided the first two contentions adversely to the position of petitioner. The last contention has no merit. A request for enlisted men to serve on the court-martial was required by 10 U.S.C. § 825(c) (1) to be made before the court-martial was convened. And if petitioner’s counsel failed to inform him of 10 U.S.C. § 825(c) (1), the point cannot be raised here for the first time. Finally, and conclusively, petitioner does not show or suggest that he has exhausted his military appellate or post-conviction remedies. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 141, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953).
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