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:
Frank G. RHODES, Appellant, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of Colorado State Penitentiary, Canon City, Colorado, Appellee.
No. 7948.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 2, 1965.
Ronald S. Luedemann, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., and Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a Colorado state prisoner, filed with the Chief Judge of this Court an application for a writ of habeas corpus which by order dated August 21, 1964, was transferred to the District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b). The- District Court denied the application without a hearing upon the grounds that appellant’s contention that his confession had been improperly admitted into evidence during the state trial stated an issue that had been fully heard and found to be without merit in a prior habeas corpus proceeding lodged as an original action in that federal district court. The order of denial stated the trial court’s satisfaction that the ends of justice would not be served by further inquiry upon the issue. This appeal follows the order of denial.
The record clearly shows that appellant's contentions were fully considered in his prior application and our consideration of the earlier proceedings (which include a review of the entire state court proceedings) indicates no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial court in refusing further inquiry. The case falls squarely within the contemplation of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 224-4.
The judgment is 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: 1