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:
Taylor DILLARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Edwin LaVALLEE, Warden of the Clinton Correctional Facility, and Benjamin Ward, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 1377, Docket 77-2046.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued June 14, 1977.
Decided July 26, 1977.
Michael J. Obús, Mineóla, N.Y. (James J. McDonough, Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, Criminal Division, Mineóla, N.Y., Matthew Muraskin, Mineóla, N.Y., of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Anthony J. Gírese, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City (Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineóla, N.Y., William C. Donnino, Asst. Dist. Atty., Mineóla, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents-appellees.
Before LUMBARD, SMITH and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Taylor Dillard appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, George C. Pratt, Judge. Dillard claims that his sentence as a second felony offender, pursuant to New York Penal Law § 70.06, violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. We find no merit in this claim and affirm.
I.
In May, 1971 Dillard was convicted of the felony of operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition, in violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192. This non-Penal Law felony is deemed to be a class E felony. New York Penal Law § 55.-10(l)(b). On February 3, 1975 he was convicted, after a jury trial, of the more serious class B felony of robbery in the 'first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law § 160.15. Judge Young, of the County Court of Nassau County, pursuant to .New York Penal Law § 70.06, sentenced Dillard as a second felony offender to imprisonment for 4V2 to 9 years. For a person who is not a second felony offender the sentence of imprisonment for a class B felony is a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 25 years. New York Penal Law § 70.00(2)(b), (3).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction without opinion, 383 N.Y.S.2d 558 (1976), and on June 15, 1976 the New York Court of Appeals denied, without opinion, Dillard’s petition for permission to appeal.
On April 4, 1977 Judge Pratt denied Dillard’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
II.
Relying on United States v. Thompson, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 452 F.2d 1333, 1340-41 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 998, 92 S.Ct. 1251, 31 L.Ed.2d 467 (1972), Dillard urges this court to strike down § 70.06 unless it serves a “compelling interest.” This reliance is misplaced. Thompson involved a challenge to the bail provisions of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, P.L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473-668. Here we have a challenge to a sentencing statute. We hold that § 70.06 does not violate the fourteenth amendment if there is “some ‘rational basis’ for the statutory distinctions made.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 422, 94 S.Ct. 700, 704, 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974). Dray- ton v. New York, 556 F.2d 644 (2d Cir. 1977); United States ex rel. Daneff v. Henderson, 501 F.2d 1180, 1183 (2d Cir. 1974).
Dillard notes that § 70.06 does not apply to non-Penal Law felonies, such as operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He argues “had he committed his offense in the reverse order, he would have been sentenced as a first offender. . . . This classification of multiple offenders based solely on the order in which offenses are committed has no rational basis. . . . ” (Brief for Appellant, at 6.)
The New York legislature could rationally decide that robbery in the first degree is a more serious crime than driving while intoxicated and classify the former as a Penal Law felony and the latter as a non-Penal Law felony. The legislature could also rationally decide to reduce the judge’s discretion in the sentencing of a Penal Law offender who, as here, has previously committed a less serious felony. This is a permissible sanction against committing crimes of increasing seriousness.
Dillard gives several illustrations in which it is possible, under New York’s current statutory scheme, for the second felony to be less serious than the first felony even when both are Penal Law felonies. For example, a person might be convicted of rape in the first degree, a class B felony, New York Penal Law § 130.35, and then be convicted of stealing a credit card, a class E felony, New York Penal Law § 155.30. We need not and do not, however, decide whether the application of § 70.06 in any of Dillard’s hypothetical examples would violate the fourteenth amendment. “Embedded in the traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the Court.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960); United States ex rel. Daneff v. Henderson, supra, 501 F.2d 1185.
We hold that § 70.06, as applied to Dillard, is rational and does not violate the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause.
Affirmed.
. New York says (Brief for Appellees, at 2) that Dillard was convicted of robbery in the first degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 160.10. Section 160.10 deals with robbery in the second degree, a class C felony. Prior to 1965 the conduct proscribed by § 160.10 constituted first degree robbery. McKinney’s Con-sol. Laws of New York, Book 39, Penal Law, 202, For purposes of this appeal we follow Judge Pratt and assume Dillard was sentenced as a class B felon.
. Section 70.06 says, in pertinent part:
3. Maximum term of sentence. The maximum term of an indeterminate sentence for a second felony offender must be fixed by the court as follows:
(a) For a class B felony, the term must be at least nine years and must not exceed twenty-five years;
4, Minimum period of imprisonment. The minimum period of imprisonment under an indeterminate sentence for a second felony offender must be fixed by the court at one-half of the maximum term imposed and must be specified in the sentence.
. Dillard concedes a “robber, even without a prior drunken driving conviction, may properly receive a greater sentence than [a] drunken driver who has committed a robbery in the past.” (Brief for Appellant, at 21). Given this concession, it would seem, a fortiori, that Dillard, a robber with a prior drunken driving conviction, could properly receive a greater sentence than a drunken driver who has committed a robbery in the past.
. Judge Pratt said the purpose of § 70.06 is the “incarceration and isolation of repeating offenders.” We need not here decide whether this alone would suffice, since we find New York’s “increasing seriousness” basis enough in Dillard’s case.
. Another of Dillard’s examples involves a non-Penal Law felony that is more serious than a Penal Law class E felony. New York Labor Law § 464 says “any person who possesses an explosive without being duly licensed or otherwise authorized to do so under the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a class D felony.”
. While a class E felony has a minimum period of imprisonment of 1 year and a maximum period of 4 years, New York Penal Law § 70.-00(2)(e), (3), a second felony offender convicted of a class E felony faces a maximum sentence of 3-4 years and a minimum sentence of one-half the maximum. New York Penal Law § 70.06(3)(d), (4).

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