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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Erma RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LEEDS, and Jack Courson, individually and in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Leeds, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-7246.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 25, 1988.
Falkenberry, Whatley & Heidt, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Lisa J. Huggins, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Robert C. Brock, William S. Haynes, Wade K. Wright, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Before ANDERSON, EDMONSON and GOODWIN , Circuit Judges.
Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin, U.S. Circuit Judge, for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Erma Ray brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) against the City of Leeds and Jack Courson, individually and in his capacity as mayor of the City of Leeds, alleging that the defendants violated her rights to freedom of speech and due process by discharging her from her position as Director of Community Services for the City of Leeds. She appeals the summary judgment for the defendants.
Ray worked in Courson’s 1980 reelection campaign for mayor. After his reelection, Courson offered Ray a part-time position with the City of Leeds as director of its Senior Citizens Department. Subsequently, she became a full-time employee, and her title later was changed to Director of Leeds Community Service. Her department performed basic social work with senior citizens and assisted needy families by arranging and providing food and clothing. She worked directly for the mayor and had the authority and discretion to meet the needs of the community as she saw them with the resources available to her in her department. Ray knew that she was, and considered herself to be, the head of a city department.
In 1984, Ray did not actively work in Courson’s reelection campaign. She expressed a belief that she could not actively support any candidate because she was a city employee. When a community services volunteer asked Ray for advice concerning the upcoming mayoral election, Ray did not recommend that she vote for Courson.
Ray was fired without a hearing three days after the election. For the purposes of summary judgment, we assume that Ray’s failure actively to support Courson in the 1984 election was a substantial motivating factor in her termination. The district court, in granting summary judgment, found that Ray failed to establish the requisite showing under § 1983 that the City’s policy or custom is to terminate persons who failed to support Courson. The court also rejected her first amendment claims, finding that neither Courson nor any other city official attempted to coerce Ray into actively supporting him, and, alternatively, that Ray held a policymaking position with the city and therefore could be terminated by the Mayor at will. Finally, the court held that Ray had no due process right to a pretermination hearing because at will employees lack a property interest in city employment.
We affirm the summary judgment on the ground that because Ray held a policymak-ing position she could be discharged for political reasons. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 367, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2687, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion) (finding that “the need for political loyalty of employees” may be served by “[ljimiting patronage dismissals to policymaking positions”).
The Elrod plurality, while recognizing that “[n]o clear line can be drawn between policymaking and nonpolicymaking positions,” observed that:
The nature of the responsibilities is critical. Employee supervisors, for example, may have many responsibilities, but those responsibilities may have only limited and well-defined objectives. An employee with responsibilities that are not well defined or are of broad scope more likely functions in a policymaking position. In determining whether an employee occupies a policymaking position, consideration should also be given to whether the employee acts as an adviser or formulates plans for the implementation of broad goals....
Id. at 367-68, 96 S.Ct. at 2687.
In Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), the Supreme Court modified the requisite inquiry:
In sum, the ultimate inquiry is not whether the label “policymaker” or “confidential” fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.
Id. at 518, 100 S.Ct. at 1295. See Tanner v. McCall, 625 F.2d 1183, 1190 (5th Cir.1980) (observing that Branti requires the employer to “show that the required political support or affiliation is relevant or essential to the job”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 907, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981).
We agree with the district court that Ray acted as a policymaker. She had the authority and discretion to deploy the resources available to her in order to address needs as she saw them. She set the policy of the Leeds Community Services Department, subject only to the authority of the mayor; she implemented a number of programs for the needy in the community. She was a department head who attended city council meetings and made presentations concerning the goals and accomplishments of her department. As the district court observed, “[i]f Ray’s job description does not constitute a policymaking position, then no such unelected position exists in Leeds.”
We reject Ray’s argument that her political beliefs were unrelated to the effective performance of her job. Where a policymaker’s position requires decisions concerning the allotment of scarce resources, her political beliefs and her compatibility with the hiring authority clearly are relevant to her performance. See Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633, 641 (7th Cir.) (finding that “an employee’s position is unprotected if, first, there is room for principled disagreement in the decisions reached by the employee and his superiors, and, second, he has meaningful direct or indirect input into the decisionmaking process”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946, 106 S.Ct. 313, 88 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985); accord Jimenez Fuentes v. Torres Gaztambide, 807 F.2d 236, 241-42 (1st Cir.1986) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1888, 95 L.Ed.2d 496 (1987).
The survey of cases set forth in Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 241, reinforces our conviction that Ray’s position was one commonly deemed to involve policymaking and that she therefore could be discharged for political reasons. See Brown v. Trench, 787 F.2d 167 (3d Cir.1986) (Assistant Director of Public Information for the county); Tomczak, 765 F.2d 633 (First Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Water); Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 722 F.2d 1307 (7th Cir.) (Superintendent of Employment for Chicago Park District), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 916, 104 S.Ct. 279, 78 L.Ed.2d 258 (1983); Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164 (7th Cir.1981) (Senior Citizens’ Coordinator), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1021, 102 S.Ct. 1719, 72 L.Ed.2d 139 (1982). Those cases finding that plaintiffs might not be policymakers and therefore are not subject to dismissal under Elrod and Branti have involved individuals who had considerably less discretion than did Ray. See Meeks v. Grimes, 779 F.2d 417 (7th Cir.1985) (city court bailiffs); Horton v. Taylor, 767 F.2d 471 (8th Cir.1985) (road-graders); Grossart v. Dinaso, 758 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir.1985); Barnes v. Bosley, 745 F.2d 501 (8th Cir.1984) (deputy court clerks), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017, 105 S.Ct. 2022, 85 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985); Jones v. Dodson, 727 F.2d 1329 (4th Cir.1984) (deputy sheriff).
Our holding that Ray was a policymaker subject to discharge for political reasons disposes of Ray’s § 1983 and due process claims. Her discharge was not unlawful and she had no property interest in her employment. It is not necessary to reach Ray’s first amendment claims.
AFFIRMED.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1