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 "private business and its executives". 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:
420 EAST OHIO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul COCOSE, William Cocose, Michael Sagett, and Mayfair Corporation, an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-3402.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued May 18, 1992.
Decided Dec. 3, 1992.
Steven J. Rosenberg, Chicago, Ill. (argued), for 420 East Ohio Ltd. Partnership.
Charles J. Risch (argued), Randall B. Gold, Lawrence A. Rosen, Howard P. Ka-min, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlen-hop, Chicago, Ill., for Paul and William Cocose and Mayfair Corp.
David A. Novoselsky, Novoselsky & Associates, Chicago, Ill. (argued), for Michael Sagett.
Before CUDAHY and MANION, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
. The Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, is sitting by designation.
FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
420 East Ohio Limited Partnership (hereinafter “the partnership”) appeals the dismissal of its three claims based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1988). We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In May of 1988, the partnership and the Mayfair Corporation entered into a contract whereby the partnership was to develop, and Mayfair was to act as general contractor for the construction of, an apartment building. The contract specified that, on a monthly basis, Mayfair was to submit an application for payment to the partnership and the partnership's architect. The application was to include copies of checks issued to subcontractors, which were supposed to prove that Mayfair had used proceeds from the prior payment to pay the subcontractors. The partnership would then fill out a statement and send it, along with Mayfair’s application, to various entities, including the Chicago Title & Trust Company. Mayfair also sent Chicago Title the subcontractors’ waivers and affidavits attesting that the subcontractors had been paid. Chicago Title reviewed the documents and, if all was in order, advised the partnership and the lender for the project (the Northern Trust Company) that the lender should advance funds to the partnership’s account, at which time the partnership wrote a check to Mayfair.
In August 1990, the partnership began receiving phone calls from various subcontractors complaining that they had not been paid. A representative from the partnership, Howard Walker, met with two of Mayfair’s officers, Paul and William Co-cose, to discuss the problem. The Cocoses told Walker that approximately $250,000 in drawn funds had been “diverted” to Mayfair instead of being used to pay subcontractors. A subsequent examination of Mayfair’s books revealed that over $359,-000 from draws thirteen through eighteen and the entire payment (over $535,000) from draw nineteen had been disbursed to Mayfair instead of to the subcontractors. These “diversions” occurred between February and August of 1990. In order to effectuate these transfers, Mayfair’s controller (Michael Sagett) falsified the necessary paperwork.
In June 1991, the partnership filed a five count complaint against Mayfair, the Co-coses, and Sagett. Counts one, two and three alleged RICO violations predicated on Mayfair’s commission of both bank and mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(1) (West Supp.1992) (identifying both mail fraud and financial institution fraud as “racketeering activity”). Counts four and five alleged common law fraud and breach of contract, respectively. The defendants (collectively referred to as “Mayfair”) filed a motion to dismiss the RICO counts, alleging the complaint failed to sufficiently allege they had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. The district court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO counts, then dismissed the pendant claims without prejudice. The partnership appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
Congress enacted RICO to help combat organized, long-term criminal activity, and granted victims of such activity a private right of action. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (1988). The elements of a RICO violation, in shorthand form, are “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985) (footnote omitted). RICO defines a “pattern of racketeering activity” as “at least two acts of racketeering activity” committed within ten years of each other. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (1988). In Sedima, the Supreme Court emphasized that two acts constituted a minimum requirement; courts were instructed to ascertain whether the racketeering acts demonstrated a combination of continuity plus relationship. Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14. In Morgan v. Bank of Waukegan, 804 F.2d 970 (7th Cir.1986), we concluded the requisite continuity was present if the predicate acts were “ongoing over an identified period of time so that they c[ould] fairly be viewed as constituting separate transactions” and suggested the following factors be considered: “the number and variety of predicate acts and the length of time over which they were committed, the number of victims, the presence of separate schemes and the occurrence of distinct injuries.” Id. at 975. We emphasized, however, that these factors were not to be applied like rules, but rather constituted standards by which the particular facts of each case were to be judged. Id. at 976. Furthermore, “[njone of these factors is controlling standing alone, yet together, they provide the lens through which the courts may focus on the existence of ‘continuity plus relationship.’ ” Jones v. Lampe, 845 F.2d 755, 757 (7th Cir.1988).
In H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989), the Supreme Court attempted to further refine the proper focus for the pattern requirement and, more specifically, the continuity component of that requirement. The Court declared that continuity existed when there are “a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time,” with a substantial period of time being a time period greater than a few weeks or months. Id. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. Alternatively, continuity can be proven if there is a threat of continued criminal activity, which is present if the racketeering activity constitutes an entity’s regular way of doing business, or if the racketeering activity, by its nature, is likely to extend into the future. Id.
After H.J., Inc., we retained the Morgan test. E.g., Management Computer Servs. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 883 F.2d 48, 51 (7th Cir.1989); Sutherland v. O’Malley, 882 F.2d 1196, 1203 (7th Cir.1989). However, our use of Morgan has changed slightly in that “we now analyze these various factors with an eye towards achieving a ‘natural and common sense’ result.” United States Textiles, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 911 F.2d 1261, 1267 (7th Cir.1990) (citing H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 251, 109 S.Ct. at 2906 (Scalia, J., concurring)). In so doing, we have examined the facts with an eye toward not only the Morgan factors, but also toward the Court’s suggestion that continuity encompass a lengthy period of racketeering activity or a threat of continued criminal activity. J.D. Marshall Int’l v. Redstart, Inc., 935 F.2d 815, 820 (7th Cir.1991) (“[T]he specific facts of each case must be examined to determine whether the predicate acts upon which the plaintiff relies establish the threat of continuing racketeering activity.”); Olive Can Co. v. Martin, 906 F.2d 1147, 1151 (7th Cir.1990) (“The scheme, therefore, had a natural ending with no threat of continued criminal activity.”); Sutherland, 882 F.2d at 1205 (“Most importantly, this case presents no threat of continuing illegal activity ... in the future.”). The requisite threat of continued criminal conduct can be proven in two ways: “a RICO plaintiff can prevail by either (1) demonstrating a closed-ended conspiracy that existed for such an extended period of time that a threat of future harm is implicit, or (2) an open-ended conspiracy that, while short-lived, shows clear signs of threatening to continue into the future.” Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016, 1023 (7th Cir.1992).
The partnership first argues Mayfair’s activity constituted closed-ended continuity by emphasizing the large number of predicate acts (mail and bank fraud) involved, the'number of subcontractors who were not paid, and the length of time between the first and last fraudulent mailings. Because the partnership’s complaint was dismissed on the pleadings, we accept all assertions and reasonable inferences contained in the complaint as true. Caldwell v. City of Elwood, 959 F.2d 670, 671 (7th Cir.1992). Nonetheless, we are not persuaded the assertions and inferences relied on by the partnership sufficiently allege continuous activity. First of all, we are not swayed by the number of times mail fraud was allegedly committed because each mailing constitutes a separate offense; consequently, the number of mailings does not necessarily bear a reliable relationship to the magnitude of Mayfair’s racketeering activity. See Ashland Oil Inc. v. Arnett, 875 F.2d 1271, 1278 (7th Cir.1989). For the same reason, we are not persuaded by the fact that multiple instane-es of bank fraud may have occurred; although the Northern Trust Company was induced to part with its money on several occasions, Mayfair’s acts were all part of a single scheme to procure the proceeds of its contract with the partnership. The fact that no more than a single scheme is present does not automatically bar the requisite continuity, but the presence of a single scheme is still relevant to our inquiry. Sutherland, 882 F.2d at 1204. Accepting as true the partnership’s allegation that the activity occurred during a six month period, we do not believe six months qualifies as the “substantial period of time” referred to in H.J Inc. — particularly when “acts extending over a few weeks or months and' threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement.” H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 2902. This does not mean a six-month period is automatically “too short”; however, six months is not long enough to allow a court to automatically infer the requisite continuity. Even if we consider the unpaid subcontractors to be victims, we do not believe the partnership has alleged anything more than an “ordinary” scheme to defraud and has failed to allege the higher degree of racketeering activity necessary to prove Mayfair represented a continuing criminal threat.
The partnership also argues Mayfair’s activities are an example of open-ended continuity, and supports its contention by relying on affidavits from individuals involved in other construction projects for which Mayfair was the general contractor. However, these affidavits were submitted as attachments to the partnership’s brief opposing Mayfair’s motion to dismiss; the complaint is devoid of any allegations that Mayfair regularly conducted its business by committing mail and bank fraud. The partnership never asked for leave to amend its complaint, and the inclusion of additional allegations in the materials opposing the motion to dismiss did not constitute an amendment. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054, 105 S.Ct. 1758, 84 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985).
III. CONCLUSION
The allegations in the partnership’s complaint do not allow us to infer Mayfair was engaged in, or threatened to engage in, continued criminal activity. Therefore, the complaint does not allege Mayfair engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, and the district court properly dismissed the complaint.
Affirmed.
. The subcontractors’ status as victims, which we do not address, is denied by Mayfair because they have received all the money they were due.
. Because of our ruling on this issue, we do not address the parties’ arguments about the substance of the affidavits.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1