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:
George TURNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16226.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1959.
George Turner, pro se.
Edward L. Scheuñer, U. S. Atty., and Clark A. Ridpath, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, for appellee.
Before SANBORN, VAN OOSTER-HOUT and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the motion, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, of George Turner, a prisoner in custody under a ten-year sentence of imprisonment, for the vacation or correction of his sentence. The order was entered without a hearing, upon the ground that the files and records of his case conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief.
The sentence, the correctness and validity of which is challenged by Turner, was based upon his plea of guilty to an information which, in five separate counts, charged him, under 18 U.S.C. § 287, with five separate violations of that section by presenting to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, on five different dates, fictitious and fraudulent claims for income tax refunds —one on April 15, 1957; one on October 28, 1957; one on April 24, 1958; one on September 24, 1958; and one on October 3, 1958. At the time of his arraignment, December 12, 1958, Turner was represented by counsel appointed by the court. After a pre-sentence investigation and on January 16, 1959, Turner was given the following sentences of imprisonment: “five (5) years on each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2 and 3 to be served concurrently with each other, and the sentences imposed on counts 4 and 5 to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively with the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2 and 3; without costs. For a total sentence of imprisonment of ten (10) years.”
Turner’s motion for vacation or correction of sentence was based upon two contentions: (1) that the counts of the information charged but one continuing offense and would support but one sentence of five years’ imprisonment, and that the sentence imposed violated his constitutional right not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; and (2) that his plea of guilty was entered by mistake and under a misunderstanding. In his motion, Turner also asserted that he had not been accorded sufficient time “to consult with his Court appointed Attorney before he was brought to Court.”
In his brief on appeal Turner asserts that “The District Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences on counts 4 and five was a denial of appellant’s constitutional rights not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” He concedes that no authority in support of this contention could be found. It is safe to say that there is no such authority. See and compare: Ebel-ing v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625, 629-631, 35 S.Ct. 710, 59 L.Ed. 1151; United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309; Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 301, 305, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306. The information charged five separate offenses and would have sustained an aggregate maximum sentence of twenty-five years.
Turner nftw asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. This is nothing more than a self-serving, unsupported and belated declaration, which is completely refuted by the transcript of the proceedings which took place when he entered his plea of guilty and when he was sentenced.
The District Court committed no error in denying Turner’s motion for the vacation or correction of his sentence.
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