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:
Walter Eugene MORSE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18741.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Sept. 19, 1967.
Walter E. Morse, pro se.
Veryl L. Riddle, U. S. Atty., and John A. Newton, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, MATTHES and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
For a history of the former, unsuccessful attempts of appellant to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon a plea of guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2115, see Morse v. United States, 324 F.2d 80 (8th Cir. 1963).
On November 7, 1966 appellant filed another “motion to vacate judgment and sentence.” He alleged as ground for the motion that the postal inspector who investigated the post office burglaries had committed perjury in the hearing held on November 1, 1962 on appellant’s previous Section 2255 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence.
There is no authority for a collateral attack upon a Section 2255 proceeding such as appellant has undertaken in this proceeding, and we believe the court would have been justified in dismissing the motion and refusing to entertain the same. The court, however, treated the application as a motion to vacate the original judgment and sentence.
After full consideration of the files and record the court found that the postal inspector’s testimony was not tainted by perjury and refused to vacate the judgment and sentence, concluding that there was “no basis for any relief under this motion * * Morse v. United States, 263 F.Supp. 306, 308 (E.D.Mo. 1967). This appeal followed.
We too have examined the record and files for the purpose of determining whether there is any basis in law or in fact to grant the appellant any relief in this proceeding, and are satisfied that nothing has been presented which would warrant us in disturbing the findings and conclusions of the district court.
The order appealed from 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