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:
SCHMIDT v. UNITED STATES.
No. 8959.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1941.
Murray Seasongood, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
James J. Waters and William W. Barron, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and Me ALLIS TER, Circuit Judges.
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
This cause was heard upon the transcript of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel. On consideration whereof, the court is of the opinion that the filing in the Clerk’s office by appellant of the affidavits obtained under the circumstances set forth in the evidence was not upon the authority of Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172, in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, since it does not appear that the court was in session at the time.
And it further appearing that to bring the acts of appellant as an attorney within the inhibition of “misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions” requires a construction of the statute providing for punishment by fine and imprisonment, which under well settled rules of construction of penal statutes we are not permitted to make, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment appealed from be and is set aside, and that the rule to show cause why appellant Schmidt should not be held in contempt of court be and the same is hereby dismissed.

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: 2