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:
LEE et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11593.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 12, 1953.
Decided May 15, 1953.
Curtis P. Mitchell, Washington, D. C., with whom William Beasley Harris, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles M. Irelati, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Thomas A. Flannery, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Robert L. Ackerly, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for ap-pellee.
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Ally, at the time record was filed, and William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C. also entered appearances for appellee.
Before PROCTOR, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were charged in multiple counts of an indictment with certain violations of the lottery laws under §§ 22-1501 and 22-1502 of the District of Columbia Code, 1951 ed. Lee was separately convicted on one count and Allen on two counts. Appellants attack the District Court’s denial of motions to suppress evidence for alleged invalidity of a search warrant upon which it was seized; motion for severance, and motion for judgment of acquittal for alleged entrapment.
Consideration of these points upon the basis of the record leads us to the conclusion that the court’s rulings were correct. Finding no error the judgments below are
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: 0