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:
ARD v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6240.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 17, 1931.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1932.
Forsyth Caro, of Pensacola, Fla., for appellant.
Fred Cubberly, U. S. Atty., and Geo. Earl Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pensacola, Fla.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA), as charged in separate counts of the indictment. He complains in his assignments of error that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to his plea in abatement, in admitting and not suppressing evidence of the seizure of liquor found in his possession while he was transporting it in his automobile, and in permitting a government agent to testify that he knew appellant was a bootlegger and arrested him without a warrant upon information which the agent considered reliable.
The plea in abatement alleges that a man named Bell acted as a grand juror, though he was not summoned or sworn as sueh. That plea does not allege appellant’s lack of knowledge that he probably would be indicted, nor show that he was unable to challenge Bell’s competency to serve on the grand jury at the time it was organized. It could properly have been overruled on ■the ground of appellant’s failure to. object at the first opportunity. Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 17 S. Ct. 235, 41 L. Ed. 624. Besides, it appears from the minutes of the court that Bell was sworn as a grand juror, though he was summoned to serve as a petit juror. It was not alleged that he was incompetent or disqualified to serve on the grand jury; only the irregularity of his selection is complained of, and that is not sufficient ground for setting aside the indictment, since it does not appear that any substantial right of appellant was affected. 28 USCA § 391. Under the circumstances disclosed, it was not error either to arrest appellant and seize the liquor without a search warrant or to admit testimony to show that he was known to the arresting officer to be a constant violator of the Prohibition Act, and that the officer in arresting him acted on reliable information that the violation of law that actually occurred was imminent. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790; Husty v. United States, 282 U. S. 694, 51 S. Ct. 240, 75 L. Ed. 629; 74 A. L. R. 1407.
The judgment is 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