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:
Mr. & Mrs. Bellot LECOINTE v. Hugo L. SCHYUNBERG, Agnes Petersen, Arthur Petersen, Cuthbert Petersen, Elisha Daniel, Julia Cummings, Camella Petersen, Arthur Petersen, Appellant.
No. 17235.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued at Christiansted Jan. 28, 1969.
Decided Feb. 6, 1969.
See also, D.C., 268 F.Supp. 939.
Frank Padilla, Frederiksted, V. I., for appellant.
Ronald H. Tonkin, James, Hodge & Tonkin, Christiansted, V. I., for appellees.
Before FREEDMAN, VAN DUSEN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
In this action for wrongful death brought under 5 V.I. Code, Section 76, the learned trial judge held the defendants liable under the doctrine of attractive nuisance as defined in Section 339 of the Restatement of Torts, Second, which, by 1 V.I. Code, Section 4, is the governing law in the Virgin Islands in the absence of local law to the contrary.
The evidence, which we have fully reviewed, supports the finding that the death of plaintiff’s three-year old son was the proximate result of the negligence of the defendants in the maintenance on their premises of the cistern in which the child was found drowned.
The learned trial judge, in awarding damages, adhered to the rule of Williams v. Dowling, 318 F.2d 642, 4 V.I. 465, (C.A.3, 1963). The award is within the allowable range and we cannot declare it excessive.
The judgment of the District Court will be 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