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:
Ralph Michael LEPISCOPO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 72-2958
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 29, 1972.
Ralph Michael Lepiscopo, pro se.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from the denial of a motion to vacate the conviction and sentence of Ralph Michael Lepiscopo, a federal prisoner. We affirm.
Appellant contends that he is entitled to § 2255 relief because the district court refused to appoint a fellow inmate “jailhouse lawyer” to represent him at his second trial. On retrial after a reversal by this Court, Lepiscopo was again convicted and that judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Lepiscopo, 5th Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 258, cert. denied 1970, 400 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 255, 27 L.Ed.2d 254.
The district court stated findings and conclusions in its final order in part as follows:
“At both trials petitioner waived counsel and ably conducted his own defense. Notwithstanding petitioner’s waiver, able counsel was appointed to represent him. At the court’s request counsel was present in the courtroom at all times during trial and available to petitioner. Furthermore, the court knows of no constitutional authority which commands that an inmate defendant is entitled to have a ‘jailhouse lawyer’ appointed to represent him.” (Footnotes omitted)
We agree with the district court’s ruling. On the appellant’s later direct appeal, we held that “The record amply illustrates that . . . [Lepiscopo] was competent to waive, and did validly waive, representation of counsel in the entire proceedings below. It is further apparent that Lepiscopo ably and aggressively served as his own counsel with a degree of competence which few laymen could exceed.” 429 F.2d at 261.
There can be no doubt that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to assistance of counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 1938, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Gideon v. Wainwright, 1962, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed. 2d 799. Nevertheless, an accused also has the right to defend himself at his trial, provided that he has knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily waived his right to the assistance of counsel. See Hawkins v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 738, 739; United States v. Odom, 9th Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 875; Minor v. United States, 8th Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 170, cert. denied 1967, 389 U.S. 882, 88 S.Ct. 131, 19 L.Ed.2d 177.
Here there is a strong showing of valid waiver of counsel.
A person accused of a criminal offense “is entitled to such counsel as is reasonably likely to render and who does render reasonably effective assistance.” Moore v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 386. The courts are not required, however, to furnish an indigent defendant with any particular attorney who may be desired. See Brown v. Craven, 9th Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170; Raullerson v. Patterson, D.Colo. 1967, 272 F.Supp. 495. This latter rule is all the more applicable to a “jailhouse lawyer,” who is unlikely to have any formal training in the law, and who would not be subject to the ethical obligations which are imposed on members of the bar. Indeed, Lepiscopo’s fellow inmate would be prohibited by the district court’s Local Rules from practicing before it because he is not a member of the bar.
It seems hardly necessary to add that the appellant’s reliance on Johnson v. Avery, 1969, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718, is misplaced. In the Johnson case the Supreme Court held that “unless and until the State provides some reasonable alternative to assist inmates in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief, it may not validly enforce a regulation such as that here in issue, barring inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners.” 393 U.S. at 490, 89 S.Ct. at 751. At both of Lepiscopo’s trials, however, the district court offered him full and proper assistance of counsel, which he chose to waive.
Affirmed.
. Filed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
. United States v. Lepiscopo, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 843.
. Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rule 1, Attorneys. We find nothing objectionable about this Rule.

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