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:
Milton PARNESS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.
No. 17248.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs Nov. 5,1968.
Decided Nov. 13, 1968.
Milton Parness, pro se.
Donald Horowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before KALODNER, FORMAN and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Once again this federal prisoner has gone to the well in his efforts to vacate and correct his sentence on the ground that it had been premised upon false information contained in a pre-sentence report.
He now appeals from the sentencing judge’s denial of his motion to vacate and correct his sentence, made under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A.
In his Opinion and Order denying the motion, the sentencing judge, after reciting newly specified challenges to the pre-sentence report, said in relevant part:
"I certify that none of the statements in the Presentence Report, presently criticized by petitioner, affected my judgment as to the sentence which should be imposed upon him.”
The stated finding of the sentencing judge stands unimpeached. Since none of the challenged statements in the presentence report were determinative factors in his sentencing, the prisoner’s complaint is groundless.
For the reasons stated the Order of the District Court will be affirmed.
. In February, 1966, Parness filed a motion under Section 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. to correct or vacate his sentence on the ground that it had been based upon “materially erroneous information with respect to the petitioner’s background” which was “highly prejudicial.” The sentencing judge heard and denied the motion. We affirmed at 368 F.2d 327 (3 Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 1012, 87 S.Ct. 1358, 18 L.Ed.2d 442 (1967).

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