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, Appellee, v. LeRoy GALLOWAY, Sr. and Ernest Galloway, Appellants.
No. 10013.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 24, 1966.
Decided Sept. 14, 1966.
John P. Gardner, Darlington, S. C., for appellants.
Marvin L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Illicit whiskey operations were laid to LeRoy Galloway, Sr., and Ernest Galloway, together with five others, under an indictment in the District Court. After three of them had pleaded guilty, the Galloways and the other two were tried jointly before a jury and convicted. Only the Galloways appeal. In this they attack the verdict as based on an erroneous charge to the jury and as without evidence to support. We affirm.
The theory of the prosecution was that the defendants had acted in concert, some personally executing the unlawful acts, the others aiding, abetting and counselling them, but each of them immediately participating in directly causing the commission of the offenses named in the several counts. The objection made by the appellants is that the Court’s submission to the jury was on the principles of conspiracy when no conspiracy was alleged in the indictment. From our study of it, we think the charge was fair, comprehensive and without prejudice to the defendants. While some of the language was akin to that ordinarily used in the exposition of conspiracy, it was also appropriate here; it was properly circumscribed to fit the accusations on trial.
Moreover, we find the evidence was altogether adequate to prove the guilt'of LeRoy Galloway, Sr. and Ernest Galloway.
Affirmed.
. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5601(a) (1), 5602, 5604(a) (1), 5604(a) (4), 5686(a).
. Guilty verdicts against both appellants were returned on five counts, and also against LeRoy Galloway, Sr. on a separate single count.
. 18 U.S.C. § 2.
. Carpenter v. United States, 264 F.2d 565 (4 Cir. 1959), cert. den. 360 U.S. 936, 79 S.Ct. 1459, 3 L.Ed.2d 1548.

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