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:
James X. LONG, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. C. E. HARRIS, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Nos. 72-1021 to 72-1023.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 14, 1973.
Robert E. Davis, Leavenworth, Kan., for petitioners-appellants.
Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for respondents-appellees.
Before SETH, McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon docketing in this court, this case was assigned to the summary calendar. Thereafter, an attorney who participated in the four day evidentiary hearing conducted in the district court was appointed to assist the appellants. A transcript of the evidentiary hearing where the appellants all testified and were afforded complete opportunity to support their claims was obtained, and the appointed attorney thereafter submitted a memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance addressing the underlying merits.
We have now carefully and thoroughly reviewed the complete record on appeal, including the transcript, and the memorandum in opposition to summary af-firmance. We are convinced that the findings made by the district court at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, reported at 332 F.Supp. 262 (D.C.Kan.1971).
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: 2