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:
Edwin P. SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 92-2577.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 26, 1992.
Decided Dec. 17, 1992.
Appellant, pro se.
Rodger E. Overholser, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Edwin P. Schneider appeals an order of the district court dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We affirm.
Schneider was convicted upon a plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). He argued on appeal that the district court erred in not granting him a departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 (1988). We affirmed. United States v. Schneider, 948 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir.1991).
Schneider now argues in this section 2255 proceeding that he was entitled to a six-level decrease in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(l) (1989) (renumbered in 1991 as section 2K2.1(b)(2)) because he possessed the firearms for lawful sporting purposes and collection. This argument is not cognizable in this proceeding because it could have been raised on direct appeal and was not. See United States v. Smith, 843 F.2d 1148, 1149 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (section 2255 relief not available to correct errors that could have been raised on direct appeal unless errors are fundamental defects causing miscarriage of justice).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable David R. Hansen, then United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, now United States Circuit Judge.

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