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:
Clennie H. SAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roger T. OVERBERG, Supt., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 79-3135.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 14, 1979.
Clennie H. Saylor, Marillyn Fagen D’Amelio, Cleveland, Ohio [Court-Appointed CJA], for petitioner-appellant.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Randall G. Burnworth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for respondent-appellee.
Before LIVELY, ENGEL and KEITH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the briefs and record, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Petitioner appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This was petitioner’s second attempt at ha-beas corpus, his first application having been denied by the District Court, with affirmance by this Court and certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In the present proceedings, the District Court held that petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies with respect to his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the state proceedings. This particular claim may be raised under Ohio’s Post-Conviction Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.21, et seq. State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71, 341 N.E.2d 304 (1976); Burrows v. Engle, 545 F.2d 552 (6th Cir. 1976). This Court’s subsequent decision in Keener v. Ridenour, 594 F.2d 581 (6th Cir. 1979), does not require a contrary conclusion under the facts of this case.
The District Court held that the other two claims in his application for habeas corpus have been included, in somewhat different form, in petitioner’s previous ha-beas corpus action, and declined to consider them. Rule 9, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. We find no abuse of discretion in this action of the District Court.
One of the previously considered grounds was the claim that there was insufficient evidence to support petitioner’s conviction for perjury. The District Court in the earlier habeas corpus action applied the test of “totally devoid of evidentiary support,” Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960), in finding petitioner had not made out a case of due process violation. Subsequently, the Supreme Court and this Court have announced a less stringent test in considering habeas corpus claims based on insufficiency of the evidence. Jackson v. Virginia, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Speigner v. Jago, 603 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir. 1979).
Applying the less stringent standard, we find that the evidence was such that a rational factfinder could have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of perjury under Ohio law. The petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on the basis of an alleged insufficiency of the evidence at his state trial.
The panel concludes that the questions on which decision of this case depends are so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Rule 9(d)3, Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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