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 second 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:
James WALKER, a/k/a James B. Walker, Jr., and Della Palmore Walker, a/k/a Della M. Palmer Walker, Appellants, v. Bruicie WALKER, James Irvin Walker and Clyde Arial Walker, Appellees.
No. 8340.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 6, 1961.
Decided Oct. 10, 1961.
James Walker, pro se.
Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Insofar as we are able to determine from the plaintiff’s complaint, brief and argument, jurisdiction of the District Court is asserted upon two grounds, (1) diversity of citizenship, and (2) unconstitutionality of the laws of the State of South Carolina which, in effect, deny to a child of an alleged common-law marriage the right to inherit from the father. The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Substantially the same questions were heretofore considered and decided by this court in an action involving these same parties, 274 F.2d 425 (4 Cir., 1960).
The plaintiff, James Walker, who appeared pro se, admitted at the bar of this court facts from which it is clear that the required diversity of citizenship is lacking. And again, we express the opinion that no substantial federal question is presented.
The District Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second 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: 4