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:
MIKESKA v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 9708.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 8, 1948.
Decided Nov. 22, 1948.
Mr. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David S. Allshouse, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John W. Pehle, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Lawrence S. Lesser of Washington D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Joe M. Mikeska.
Messrs. D. Vance Swann, Atty., Dept, of Justice, George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. and Sidney S. Sachs and Thomas E. Walsh, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee, United States of America.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The case must be affirmed. The only questions involved are the intention of the insured soldier and whether or not he took such steps to effectuate his intention to change the beneficiary of his policy (if he had any such intention) as reasonably might be expected under the circumstances. We find nothing in the record to cause us to disturb the decision of Judge Letts based upon his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which we therefore adopt
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: 4