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:
Barbara L. FITZGIBBONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 75-2187
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 14, 1975.
George G. Graham, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Gilbert E. Andrews, Acting Chief, Appellate Sect., John E. Lutz, Grant W. Wiprud, Sharon A. Darling, Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Fitzgibbons appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict upholding the assessment of a penalty against her under Section 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code (1954). The jury found her to be a responsible “person” of Aerovías International Balboa, S. A. (Balboa) who willfully failed to pay over withheld employment taxes in the amount of $5,501.97, for the four quarters of 1968, and the first quarter of 1969. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court should have granted Fitzgibbons’ motion for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the judgment based upon the jury finding for the first three quarters of 1968, and reverse with respect to the last quarter of 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.
Under Boeing Company v. Shipman, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75, if reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach differing conclusions on the evidence, the case must be submitted to the jury. Only if the facts and inferences “point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict,” should the motion for a directed verdict or judgment N.O.V. be granted.
Fitzgibbons, who for a time was secretary of Balboa and Mieres, who was general manager of Balboa, were the only witnesses. The issue as to who was responsible for the corporation’s failure to pay its taxes had to be determined on a credibility choice since each witness placed ultimate authority with the other. It was, therefore, appropriate for the jury to resolve the dispute, at least with respect to the first three quarters of 1968.
Fitzgibbons resigned her position as secretary of Balboa on October 25, 1968. Thereafter there is no evidence to support her status as a responsible person who willfully failed to pay employment taxes. Fitzgibbons’ motion for a directed verdict should have been granted as to the taxes due in the fourth quarter of 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.
The judgment is affirmed with respect to the first three quarters of 1968, and is reversed with respect to the fourth quarter of 1968, and the first quarter of 1969, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
. The exact amounts due per quarter are:
Quarter Ending Penalty
3-31-68 $ 1,194.93
6-30-68 1,235.38
9-30-68 1,433.89
12-31-68 1,533.85
3-31-69 103.92
Total As sessment $ 5,501.97

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: 3