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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary Grace WESTLAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-1402
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 1973.
Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Lawrence B. Craig, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 (a). On appeal, she raises two points, both of which we consider to be without merit.
First, she argues that the implementation of the jury selection plan for the Southern District of Florida unconstitutionally excludes Cuban immigrants and young adults from jury service. This very contention has been raised and rejected on many occasions in the past. See, e. g., United States v. Gooding, 5th Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 425; United States v. Blair, 5th Cir. 1972, 470 F.2d 331; United States v. Pentado, 5th Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 355. Those decisions are dis-positive of appellant’s first contention.
Secondly, appellant argues that 21 U.S.C. § 811, which empowers the Attorney General to modify the “schedules” of controlled substances and narcotics set out in 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), represents an impermissible delegation of legislative power. We decline to reach this point at the present time. Congress initially classified cocaine as a Schedule II Controlled Substance, and the Attorney General has neither rescheduled nor deleted cocaine from the list of controlled substances since the effective date of the statute. Appellant therefore has not been affected by whatever delegation of authority may be embodied in the statute.
The judgment below is accordingly 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: 3