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:
Sam DiPIAZZA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 71-1992.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 9, 1972.
Decided Jan. 12, 1973.
Louis A. DiRosa, New Orleans, La., for appellant; Guy Johnson, New Orleans, La., on brief.
William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., Byron E. Trapp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert J. Vedatsky, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Henry E. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sidney M. Glazer, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and BRATCHER, District Judge
Honorable Rhodes Bratcher, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted in a jury trial in the Southern District of Ohio of seven counts of. using interstate facilities to promote an illegal gambling enterprise and one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, and 371. The conviction was affirmed by this court. 415 F.2d 99 (1969), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 949, 91 S.Ct. 1606, 29 L.Ed.2d 119 rehearing denied, 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2221, 29 L.Ed.2d 702 (1971).
Appellant then filed a motion to vacate sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds that the District Judge’s charge to the jury was incorrect. He appeals from the denial of this motion.
It is well settled in this circuit that a motion to vacate is not a proper substitute for appeal. Petro v. United States, 368 F.2d 807 (6th Cir. 1968); Hill v. United States, 223 F.2d 699, 701 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, 100 L.Ed. 768 (1955). Furthermore, jury instructions are not subject to attack under § 2255. Hollbrook v. United States, 441 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1971).
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: 1