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:
Rita A. LAUBE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 12347.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 17, 1958.
Decided March 25, 1958.
Harold Kamens, Newark, N. J., for petitioner.
Morton K. Rothschild, Washington, D. C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Tax Court concluded that the taxpayer had become a limited partner in the partnership of which her husband had been a member upon his death in 1946 and that she did not sell her limited partnership interest to the partnership in that year. There is ample evidence in the record to support these conclusions of the Tax Court. This being so, we cannot conclude that the Tax Court was in error in holding that the taxpayer did not receive a long term capital gain in 1946 when she received $2250 from the partnership in that year. The Tax Court has correctly applied the law as we see it. Accordingly the decision of the Tax Court will be 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: 3