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:
Alfred D. ARELLANES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22879.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 25, 1969.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1969.
F. Conger Fawcett (argued), of Graham & James, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
John Milano (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
Honorable Fred M. Taylor, United States District Judge, District of Idaho, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
The validity of appellant’s conviction has been challenged before this court on three earlier occasions. The issues tendered to the district court in appellant’s last application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were encompassed in a prior petition on which a hearing was held and an order entered denying relief, which this court affirmed. Arellanes v. United States, 353 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1965), affirming 238 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.Cal.1964). In these circumstances, appellant was entitled to a hearing on the present motion only upon a showing that the ends of justice would be served by a redetermi-nation of the issues. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). Although the opinion of the district court dismissing the motion is couched largely in other terms, it left no room to doubt that it was the district court’s view that reliti-gation of the issues would not serve the ends of justice. That decision was within the district court’s discretion (see Sanders v. United States, supra, at 18, 83 S.Ct. 1068), and will not be disturbed here.
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: 2