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:
Donald GARDNER and John David Rankin et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. F. THOMPKINS, East Unit Warden, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 72-2462.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 28, 1972.
Don Gardner, pro se.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
FER CURIAM:
Nine inmates of the maximum security section of the Florida State Prison at Raiford sought to file a civil rights complaint seeking injunctive relief for asserted deprivations of Federal constitutional rights resulting from their confinement in administrative segregation apart from the general prison population. They alleged (i) denial of the right to have legal documents notarized in their presence and to retain such notarized documents in their possession, (ii) denial of outdoor yard, movie and canteen privileges, (iii) denial of clean razors and shaving mirrors, and (iv) denial of the right to assemble together for religious services. The District Court, finding the allegations frivolous, denied permission to file the complaint in forma pauperis. We affirm.
When a State prisoner asserts a claim which, if proven, could potentially evolve into a substantial Federal question of constitutional proportions, he is ordinarily entitled to an opportunity to prove his allegations. Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 461 F.2d 1080 and companion cases. Here, however, even conceding the truth of each of the allegations, we cannot conclude that any of them involve actual or potential constitutional significance. If corrections are required, they must be implemented by the appropriate prison officials. Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 9, 12.
Affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 1158.

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: 2