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:
TESSITORE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6631.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 29, 1933.
Clarence J. Dowling, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Edmond E. Talbot, U. S. Atty., and William H. Norman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for the United States.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied June 9, 1933.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession and' sale of intoxicating liquor. His only assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence which disclosed the seizure of two gallon jugs of liquor which were discovered upon a search of his automobile. A prohibition agent arranged with an informer to order the liquor in question from appellant by telephone. The informer testified that in the presence of the agent, he telephoned to appellant to deliver at a given address two gallons of liquor, and that appellant accepted the order and agreed to deliver the liquor promptly; that acting for the same agent he had made a similar purchase a few days before and had it delivered to the same address. In his testimony the informer was corroborated by the agent. Shortly after the alleged telephone-conversation appellant came out of his place of business, drove in his automobile to Ms home, got two packages, and then proceeded with them in his automobile in the direction of the afldress which the informer says he gave him. The agent had no search warrant, but followed appellant and arrested him before ho had reached his destination. Appellant denied the telephone conversation, and claimed that at the time his telephone was out of order. A card from the office of the telephone company tended to corroborate appellant, there being upon it an entry in pencil that the telephone was reported out of order before the alleged order for the liquor in question was given, and was not repaired until two days later. But the original entry apparently had been erased and the one that now appears on the card had been substituted. At any rate the agent had probable and reasonable cause to believe, because of the information that a sale had been made to the informer by appellant a few days before and of his own knowledge of what he saw, that appellant was engaged in the unlawful sale and transportation of liquor. He therefore had the right to search the automobile without a search warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790.
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