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:
Edward A. FITZGERALD, Jr., and J. L. Witt, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20191.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 6, 1963.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1963.
John J. Sullivan, Savannah, Ga., for appellants.
Donald H. Fraser, U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We have carefully considered the contentions made by appellants. We find that the district court committed no error in ending the cross examination of Government witness J. C. Phillips. The witness had been permitted to answer several questions, all producing negative response. The court need not permit repetitive questions touching on the same matter.
As to the contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused in comments made by him, we think this a rather tenuous argument, and in view of the fact that counsel failed to move for a mistrial or for the court otherwise to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, we conclude there was no reversible error. Likewise we conclude that there was no failure of proof with respect to the possession of the condensor, as charged in the indictment. Although the indictment charged the possession of a Gatling gun type copper condensor, and counsel tells us that the condensor presented to the jury was not made of copper, we find no evidence in the record touching on this point. Finally, there is no substance in the contention that language of the trial court coerced the jury into a verdict.
The judgment is 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: 2