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:
Eugene M. BARRETT, Appellant, v. C. H. LOONEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.
No. 5758.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1958.
Joseph P. Jenkins, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Washington, D. C. (William C. Farmer, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., Milton P. Beach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan., and Cecil L. Fori-nash, Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Washington, D. C., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, LEWIS and BREI-TENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case presents a single question: Does one who enlists in the military while under lawful age for enlistment but who continues to voluntarily render military service after reaching the age of permissible enlistment thereupon become amenable to court-martial jurisdiction for offenses committed after such lawful age is attained?
Appeal is taken from the judgment of the District Court of Kansas holding that one who so serves becomes a member of the military and subject to its jurisdiction.
The particular facts premising the issue, together with a careful analysis of pertinent authority, is set forth in the opinion of Senior Circuit Judge Huxman who heard the case upon assignment to the District Court. We agree with Judge Huxman’s opinion and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated therein. 158 F.Supp. 224. Since we hold appellant to have been a member of the military at the time of his offenses we need not consider any aspect of possible military jurisdiction over civilians.

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