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. Solomon GREEN, Appellant.
No. 340, Docket 33989.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 1969.
Decided Jan. 27, 1970.
Herbert S. Siegal, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, Gary P. Naftalis, Ross Sandler, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel, for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The trial court found Green guilty of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (1964), and of conspiracy to. violate 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (1964) and Green appeals. We affirm the conviction.
From the findings of the trial court which are supported by ample evidence it appears that Green participated in a conspiracy to cash winning twin double tickets at Yonkers and Roosevelt Raceways. The purpose of the conspiracy was to keep secret from the raceway officials, and ultimately from the Internal Revenue Service, the identity of true winners on these tickets.
Green contends that his conviction on the conspiracy count must be- set aside because he was charged with conspiring with one Sandler and there is insufficient evidence of Sandler’s participation. However, the indictment charged Green with conspiring not only with Sandler but with other persons unknown to the Grand Jury. The evidence as to conspiracy with various winners was clearly sufficient to establish the conspiracy.
“Of course, at least two persons are required to constitute a conspiracy, but the identity of the other members of the conspiracy is not needed, inasmuch as one person can be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown.” Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 375, 71 S.Ct. 438, 443, 95 L.Ed. 344 (1951).
Moreover, there was evidence that Green had Sandler obtain for him a quantity of losing twin double tickets to offset the winning tickets.
Green also urges that he was not properly convicted of perjury. The question which elicited the allegedly perjurious answer, “No,” was:
“Now, from then [1964] until the present did you engage in any transaction at Yonkers Raceway where you either gave winning twin double tickets to others to cash or cashed winning twin double tickets which you received from others ?”
Green’s contention that he thought the question referred only to transactions involving more than one ticket is clearly frivolous. In any event a moment later Green answered, “No” to the question:
“During that entire period then you neither cashed anyone else’s ticket or gave anyone else a ticket to cash for you?”
Finally Green argues that the evidence as to perjury did not satisfy the two witness rule. However, apart from the corroboration of each other’s testimony provided by two witnesses each testifying to different transactions, see United States v. Manfredonia, 414 F.2d 760, 764 (2d Cir. 1969), the evidence of a witness as to one of the transactions was corroborated by Green’s own admission. See United States v. Marchisio, 344 F.2d 653, 665 (2d Cir. 1965).

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