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 ex rel. Jack JAMES, Relator-Appellant, v. Harold W. FOLLETTE, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, at Stormville, New York, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 688, Docket 33894.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1970.
Decided Sept. 21, 1970.
George J. Grumbach, Jr., New York City, for relator-appellant.
Hillel Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, Samuel A. Hirsho-witz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Before WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges, and ZAMPANO, District Judge.
Of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jack James appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying without a hearing his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirmed on the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Weinfeld, reported at 301 F.Supp. 569 (S.D.N.Y.1969).
While the District Court erroneously relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), which relates to federal detention and not to state prisoners, in support of its decision not to hold a hearing, this miscitation hardly warrants a reversal. The ruling was correct. The entire trial transcript, Judge Palmieri’s two prior opinions, and the Skobel report were thoroughly reviewed by Judge Weinfeld. 301 F.Supp. at 571. These documents provided an undisputed factual record sufficiently adequate to enable Judge Weinfeld to make an independent appraisal of appellant’s constitutional claims. Therefore there was no need for an evidentiary hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); United States ex rel. Mason v Murphy, 351 F.2d 610, 611 (2 Cir. 1965) (per curiam).
We are grateful to George J. Grum-bach, Jr., Esq., assigned counsel in this case, for his able presentation on appellant’s behalf.

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