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:
Marshall CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lewis B. STEVENS, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14426.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
June 9, 1961.
Marshall Clark, in pro. per.
Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for appellees.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER.
The petitioner, Marshall Clark, has appealed from an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. His contention is that, upon his release, the Board of Parole lost jurisdiction under the Mandatory Release Act. However, it is well settled that a released prisoner remains on parole until the expiration of the maximum term for which he was sentenced. The jurisdiction of the Board of Parole over a parolee or released prisoner would be the same. See Section 4203(a), Title 18 U.S.C.A. See also Section 4164, Title 18 U.S.C.A.
The courts of the United States will not interfere in cases where the Board of Parole revokes a parole upon evidence showing a violation of the parole, or the mandatory release, unless there is a showing that the Board acted capriciously or that it abused its discretion. Christianson v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 89 F.2d 40; Freedman v. Looney, 10 Cir., 210 F.2d 56, 57.
The appellant left his home State of residence and failed to report to the Board of Parole, as required by law. This occasioned the Board’s revocation of his parole; and there is certainly no abuse of discretion by the Board.
For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of Chief Judge Levin, and for the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court denying the petition and dismissing the action is affirmed.

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