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:
Michael F. LALLY, Appellant, v. CRAWFORD COUNTY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, DENISON, IOWA; Jimmie Thomas, Appellees.
No. 88-1788.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 7, 1988.
Decided Dec. 22, 1988.
Michael F. Lally, pro se.
James B. Cavanagh, Omaha, Neb., for appellees.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Lally appeals pro se from the orders of the district court dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm.
This action arose out of the manner in which a $48,000 debt owed by Lally was collected by appellees Crawford County Trust and Savings Bank and its employee, Jimmie Thomas. Lally filed a complaint for violations- of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1692o (FDCPA), which the district court ultimately dismissed for failure to state a claim. This appeal followed.
A party is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right [can] be fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). In the case at bar, Lally’s § 1983 claim was based on the allegation that Thomas acted under color of state law when he threatened to have Lally put in jail for violating state criminal statutes. We hold that the district court properly dismissed Lally’s § 1983 claim for lack of state action.
Although a pro se complaint is to be liberally construed, it “must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions.” Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985). In pleading RICO violations, a litigant must allege the time, place, and content of all false representations. Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1062 (8th Cir.1982), rev’d in part on other grounds, 710 F.2d 1361 (banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 527, 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983). This Lally failed to do in spite of the fact that the district court afforded him sufficient opportunity to amend his complaint and warned that his failure to do so would result in dismissal. The district court’s dismissal of Lally’s RICO and FDCPA claims was proper.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

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: 0