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:
Bernard Young SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7173.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 25, 1963.
James E. Carpenter, Denver, Colo. (Bernard Young Smith filed a brief pro se), for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
PICKETT, Circuit Judge.
On July 28, 1954, the appellant, Smith, pleaded guilty to a five-count indictment, and was sentenced on each count to serve consecutive sentences. Counts two and three grew out of an occasion on which Smith was alleged to have broken and entered a United States Post Office with intent to steal property of the United States. The indictment, in separate counts, charged the offense of breaking and entering the post office with intent to commit larceny, and also the offense of stealing money or property of the United States. The fifth count charged a violation of Section 2(e) of the Federal Firearms Act, 52 Stat. 1250 (1938), 15 U.S.C. § 902(e), by alleging that Smith, having theretofore been convicted of a crime of violence, transported an automatic pistol in interstate commerce. In this proceeding, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Smith attacks the validity of the judgments and sentences on counts two and three, contending that only one crime was committed for which he could be sentenced. As to the fifth count, it is asserted that the conviction of a crime of violence occurred before the enactment of the Federal Firearms Act, and could not be relied upon in enforcing the statute, because of the Constitutional prohibition against the passage of any ex post facto law. The trial court denied Smith’s motion.
Section 2115 of Title 18, U.S.C.,. provides that whoever foreeably breaks into any post office, or building used in whole or in part as a post office, with intent to commit larceny or other depredation, shall be fined not more than $1000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Section 641 of Title 18, U.S.C., makes the embezzlement or theft of government property an offense. In Macomber v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 114, the defendants were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2115 and 18 U.S.C. § 1707, which is identical in principle to 18 U.S.C. § 641. We held, citing Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153, that “[e]ven though committed at the same time, the two offenses were distinct [and] were properly laid as separate counts in the indictment,” thus subjecting the defendants to the maximum sentence authorized by statute on each count. Smith relies upon Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, in which the Supreme Court held, in construing the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113, that the legislative history of that Act compelled a conclusion that Congress did not intend that a person could be punished for two separate crimes when a bank was entered and property was stolen therefrom. The decision refers to Morgan v. Devine, supra, and distinguishes it. Cf. Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct. 250, 71 L.Ed. 505.
There is no merit to the contention that Section 2(e) of the Federal Firearms Act is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law when applied to one who has been convicted of a crime of violence prior to the passage of the Act. Paragraph three of Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, prohibiting the passage of ex post facto laws, does not prevent the regulation by Congress of conduct, which it has the power to regulate, even though subjection to the regulation depends upon behavior occurring before the enactment of the statute. Cases v. United States, 1 Cir., 131 F.2d 916, cert. denied Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718.
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