On the specific issue of long-term offenders who meet the dangerous offender criteria, it's really not possible to give a definitive number, because you'd have to actually look at the reasons for the actual designation.
Certainly I've taken a hard look at all the cases that have come down post-Johnson. Sometimes a judge is quite explicit. He will say, I've considered and I find you meet the dangerous offender criteria, but you don't meet the Johnson test; therefore, you can be managed successfully and you are an LTO. Other times the judges aren't very specific as to their rationale, so it's difficult to place a really strong number.
I can suggest that when we look at a number of the decisions post-Johnson, there have been about 40 appeal cases brought by designated dangerous offenders on the strength of a Johnson-type argument. About half of those have resulted in an order for a rehearing or a lesser sentence. That tells us again that a significant number are out there. It's a tell-tale sign, I think, that a significant number of long-term offenders are in fact meeting the dangerous offender criteria, but in terms of specific numbers, we have not done a study to analyze all the judgments, and I don't know that such a study would give you an empirically valid number.
It's difficult to really respond to that.