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 SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard L. DUGGER, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections; Tom Barton, Superintendent of Florida State Prison at Starke, Florida; Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 86-3333.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 5, 1989.
Billy H. Ñolas, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, Fla., San-tha Sonenberg, Public Defender Service for the Dist. of Columbia, Washington, D.C., Baya Harrison, III, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.
Lawrence A. Kaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Patricia Conners, Dept, of Legal Affairs, Carolyn Snurkowski, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Action on the petition for rehearing in this case has been unduly delayed. The only issue of concern to the Court is the so-called Hitchcock issue. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), was decided after this case was decided by the district court and while it was on appeal. At one point on the appeal, petitioner, Frank Smith, sought to have the appellate proceeding held in abeyance pending resubmission of this issue to the state court. This motion was denied. If Smith had been entitled to relief on any other ground asserted on appeal, such delay by that procedure would not have been justified.
The Court, however, denied relief on all grounds initially asserted on this appeal by opinion dated March 9,1988. 840 F.2d 787. The mandate has not been issued pending consideration of the Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Bane, and the supplemental briefs filed in connection therewith.
As far as is known to this Court, petitioner has not yet sought to resubmit the Hitchcock issue to the state court in light of the United States Supreme Court decision and subsequent cases decided by this court and the Florida Supreme Court.
It is inappropriate for this Court to deal with these issues on this petition for rehearing. The petition is denied without prejudice to the petitioner’s properly presenting the claims to the Florida state courts, a procedure that is required by the exhaustion rule prior to the submission of the issue to the Federal court. Were it not for Hitchcock v. Dugger, supra, this petition for rehearing would have been denied without comment. This Order clarifies that the unexhausted claim based on these later cases is not foreclosed by this decision.
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED, and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing in banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing In Banc is DENIED.

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