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:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Domingo COLON, Relator-Appellant, v. Hon. Harold W. FOLLETTE (Successor to Hon. Edward M. Fay), Warden, Green Haven Prison, Stormville, New York, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 44, Docket 29459.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 26, 1966.
Decided Sept. 29, 1966.
Lewis S. Sandler, New York City (Mendes & Mount, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Brenda Soloff, Asst. Atty. Gen. of New York (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty Gen., Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, John M. Cannella, Judge, dated December 17, 1964, denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant was convicted after a jury trial in the former Court of General Sessions of New York County of two counts of feloniously selling a narcotic drug and was subsequently, on December 11, 1961, sentenced to consecutive terms of from 7% to 10 years in prison. The Appellate Division modified to the extent of ordering that the sentences be concurrent. People v. Colon, 20 A.D.2d 854, 248 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1st Dept. 1964), and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.
Appellant’s claim below that he was denied a fair trial due to the excessive participation of the trial judge and certain remarks of the prosecutor on summation is identical with his claim presented on direct appeal to the Appellate Division. We hold that the alleged wrongful conduct complained of falls short of raising a constitutional question. See United States ex rel. Castillo v. Fay, 350 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1019, 86 S.Ct. 637, 15 L.Ed.2d 533 (1966).
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