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:
Suzanne L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, and Constance Robinson, Appellant, v. PARKE-DAVIS AND COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 81-1819.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 6, 1982.
Decided Aug. 17, 1982.
David Rosenblum, Alexandria, Va. (Herbert Rosenblum, Rosenblum & Rosenblum, Alexandria, Va., Edward S. Horowitz, Horowitz, Oneglia, Goldstein, Foran & Parker, College Park, Md., on brief), for appellant.
Jean-Pierre Gamier, Falls Church, Va. (Kohlhaas, Gamier & Webb, Falls Church, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This action was instituted by a mother and her daughter for injuries to the daughter ostensibly resulting from the mother’s use of the defendant’s drug Norlutin during her pregnancy. The two plaintiffs asserted five causes of action in their complaint. In response to a motion by the defendant, the district court dismissed all claims of the mother after concluding that they were barred by the applicable Virginia statute of limitations. Va.Code § 8.01-243(B). The court also dismissed two of the five causes of action of the daughter. The mother appealed her dismissal, while the daughter’s case continued through discovery.
While the district court’s order appears to end the mother’s litigation, the court failed to make “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and ... an express direction for the entry of judgment,” as provided for in Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 54(b). Because the district court’s order adjudicated “fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties”, the order was still subject to revision by the district court and would be appealable only upon an express Rule 54(b) certification. E.g., Schnur & Co. v. McDonald, 328 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1964); Wright & Miller, 10 Federal Practice & Procedure § 2660 (1973). Without such certification, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We express no opinion as to whether or not the appeal should be certified under FRCP 54(b) should the appellant make proper application to the district court following the dismissal of her appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

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: 3