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 second 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:
Nathan PUTCHAT and Sally Putchat, husband and wife, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 18292.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 9, 1970.
Decided May 4, 1970.
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.
Arthur Pelikow, New York City, (Robert B. Alexander, Jr., Stuart M. Berkman, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
William S. Eastabrook, Dept, of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C. (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Thomas L. Stapleton, Janet R. Spragens, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and LATCHUM, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Nathan and Sally Putchat filed a joint federal income tax return for 1959. The Commissioner subsequently determined that they improperly reported as long-term capital gain $75,000.00 received in complete settlement of a lawsuit by Nathan seeking to enforce his rights under a contract. Taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. The court rejected their petition, holding that “an amount received by petitioner as consideration for the release of all his rights under an employment contract * * * constitutes ordinary income.” 52 T.C. 470 (1969). This appeal followed.
We have reviewed the record made below in the light of the contentions of counsel both in their briefs and at oral argument. We are convinced that the Tax Court correctly decided the issues of fact and law and therefore affirm on its opinion.
The judgment of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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