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:
UNITED STATES of America v. Jay L. GIBSON, Appellant.
No. 90-3148.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Oct. 2, 1990.
Before WALD, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot filed July 24, 1990, and the letters dated August 6 and 13, 1990, in response thereto; the supplemental motion to dismiss as moot; the motion to dismiss appeal and the response thereto; and the motions to amend, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed motion to dismiss as moot be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the district court order of May 4, 1990, 737 F.Supp. 100, be vacated. See United States v. Miller, 685 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1982); Lettsome v. Waggoner, 672 F.Supp. 858, 861 n. 4 (D.V.I.1987). Cf. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). As to the other district court orders which Brunwasser requests be vacated, the court finds that the reasons which generally support vacatur are not present in the other orders. See Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 39, 71 S.Ct. at 106. Also, in the unlikely event that the issue arises in another case, Brunwasser would be free to raise the fact that his contentions were never addressed in an appeal. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Gibson’s remaining motions be dismissed as moot.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

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