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:
Louis GOLDING, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 6896.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 8, 1955.
Decided Feb. 7, 1955.
Buford T. Henderson, Wake Forest, N. C., for appellant.
Neil Brooks, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C. (J. Stephen Doyle, Jr., Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Howard Rooney and Donald A. Campbell, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appel-lee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment for penalties for violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. Appellant is a tobacco farmer who, because of his failure to report the disposition of his crops, had an acreage allotment of zero for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953. There was evidence which justified the findings of the court below that appellant raised and sold flue cured tobacco in the years in question in the amount found by the court. The penalty based on price was established by regulations contained in the Federal Register. Appellant complains of the refusal to continue the case, but this was clearly a matter resting in the discretion of the trial judge and there is no showing that the discretion was abused. He complains, also, because the court considered marketing quota regulations, which were contained in the Federal Register but were not introduced in evidence. It is clear, however, that the court could take judicial notice of these regulations. 44 U.S.C.A. § 307; Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10. There was no error and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
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