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:
Stephen Michael LAMBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The Honorable Paul BROWN, Secretary of the Air Force of the United States of America, Col. Clare T. Ireland, Jr., USAF, Commanding Officer, 62nd MAW, Lt. Col. Robert G. Denson, USAF, Commanding Officer, 621 OMS, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 24594.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 12, 1970.
Michael H. Rosen, Daniel H. Smith, Seattle, Wash, for appellant.
Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty, Tacoma, Wash, for appellees.
Before HAMLEY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and GOODWIN, District Judge.
Hon. Alfred T. Goodwin, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Michael Lambert appeals the dismissal by the district court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking discharge from the United States Air Force as a conscientious objector.
Since noting this appeal, it now appears that appellant has been given a General Discharge from the Air Force and is therefore no longer in the custody of appellees. We are informed that this discharge carries no continuing obligation by way of reserve duty or otherwise and that appellant’s position regarding veteran’s benefits is substantially the same as it would have been had he been granted an Honorable Discharge. Indeed, his position in this regard is markedly better than it would have been had he been granted the discharge he sought as a conscientious objector. See 38 U.S. C. § 3103.
Since we know of no adverse collateral consequences of this discharge, cf. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), it is hereby ordered that this appeal be dismissed as moot.

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