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:
Leanel WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18804.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 19, 1961.
Leanel Williams, Atlanta, Ga., in pro. per.
' Joe Tunnell, U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for appellee.
Before CAMERON, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was indicted for murder under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111. Thereafter he entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently on the date set for trial he appeared with his court-appointed counsel. He withdrew the plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of second degree murder. On that plea the Court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A year and a half later he filed a motion stated to be pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. 33, 18 U.S.C.A. for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In reality the complaint was that the Government offered no evidence and that the testimony of the witnesses as to the altercation resulting in the homicide as well as the doctors’ medical opinions on the cause of death should have been offered. While it is expressed in an inartful way we treat the papers as though they state that had this been done, the Trial Court would not have found him guilty.
But a plea of guilty is a judicial admission of all of the elements of the crime and no proof is needed. Newalk v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 254 F. 2d 869. So long as the plea of guilty having these legal consequences stands these matters are foreclosed. A motion for new trial, F.R.Crim.P. 33, would not be the way of raising the question of the validity of the plea of guilty. But treating all of the papers as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 proceeding as appellant has urged us to do, there is nothing in the moving papers showing anything which would require a hearing or which would entitle him to relief from the judgment of conviction upon his plea of guilty.
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