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:
HOLIDAY v. STATE OF MARYLAND.
No. 5922.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 7, 1949.
Decided Nov. 8, 1949.
Malichi Holiday, pro se, on brief. Harrison L. Winter, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland (Hall Hammond, Attorney General of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a habeas corpus case by a prisoner who is imprisoned in the Maryland Penitentiary under the sentence and judgment of a Maryland state court. The application for the writ was properly denied since application for habeas corpus on practically the same grounds was denied by the Maryland courts. Holliday v. Warden, 59 A.2d 777 and Holliday v. Warden, 62 A.2d 573, certiorari being denied in the latter case by the Supreme Court, Holiday v. Warden, 336 U.S. 928, 69 S.Ct. 650, 93 L.Ed. -. Certiorari was also denied by the Supreme Court to the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Holiday v. Swenson, 334 U.S. 822, 68 S.Ct. 1075, 92 L.Ed. 1751. There are no allegations which would justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by the lower federal courts under such circumstances. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254; Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 68 S.Ct. 1270, 92 L.Ed. 1647; Goodman v. Swenson, 4 Cir., 173 F.2d 349.
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: 2